BX  5136  .R58 
R±vlng-ton,  Luke, 
Dependence 


1838-1899. 


INSECURITY 

OK 

THE   ANGLICAN  POSITION 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2015 


ht,tps://archive.org/details/dependenceorinseOOrivi 


DEPENDENCE  ^XTOt 


OR  THE 

INSECURITY  OF  THE  ANGLICAN  POSITION 


BY  THE 

REV.  luke'rivington:,  m.a. 

MAGDALEN  COLLEGE,  OXFORD 
AL'THOR  OF  '  ALTHORITY  '  AND  '  DUST  ' 


LONDON 

KEGAN  PAUL,  TRENCH,  &  CO.,  i  TATERNOSTER  SQUARE 

1889 


{The  ris'i!!  0/  translation  and  of  reproduction  are  reserved) 


PREFACE 


The  immediate  origin  of  the  following  pages  will  be 
found  in  Chapters  I.  and  IX.,  in  which  I  have  replied 
to  two  attacks  on  my  book,  '  Authority.'  To  the  other 
numerous  notices  and  reviews  of  that  volume,  I  have 
given  no  direct  reply.  The  Catholic  press  gave  it  a  warm 
welcome,  which  only  needs  grateful  acknowledgment. 
The  Anglican  press  has  indulged  in  a  great  deal  of  vehe- 
ment rejoinder,  but  without  anything  that  I  can  call 
solid  argument.  Mr.  Gore's  attack  has  been  met  by 
Father  Richardson's  book,  '  What  are  the  Catholic 
'  Claims  ? ' — to  which  I  would  refer  any  reader  who 
wishes  for  a  complete  and  concise  reply  to  the  arguments 
usually  advanced  in  favour  of  their  position  by  those  who 
are  called  Ritualists. 

The  following  pages  deal  with  the  historical  argument, 
which  once  seemed  to  me  sound,  but  which  I  have  here 
endeavoured  to  show  does  not  support  the  Anglican 
position. 

I  wish  to  add  to  Chapter  VII.,  on  Henry  VIII.,  that, 
in  speaking  of  that  king  as  possessed  of  a  strong  will, 
I  must  not  be  understood  to  speak  of  him  as  a  strong 
character.   The  very  reverse  seems  to  be  the  truth.  But 


vi 


Preface 


when  once  his  passions  were  enlisted  in  a  cause,  he  could 
be  determined,  even  to  madness,  for  the  time  being. 

A  book  has  recently  appeared  on  'The  Petrine  Claims,' 
by  Dr.  Littledale,  which  contains,  so  far  as  I  can  see, 
nothing  new,  but  which  seems  to  me  to  mark  an  epoch 
in  this  controversy,  and  for  this  reason.  The  '  Society 
'for  the  Promotion  of  Christian  Knowledge,' — the  most 
representative  society  in  the  Church  of  England,  with 
the  archbishops  and  bishops  for  its  patrons — publishes 
this  work  'under  the  direction  of  its  Tract  Committee,' 
and  it  is  dedicated,  with  permission,  to  Bishop  Stubbs. 
And  this,  after  a  previous  publication  by  the  same  writer 
has  been  so  thoroughly  discredited. 

This  book  opens  with  a  statement  which,  with  some, 
will  surely  suggest  a  different  line  of  thought  from  what 
the  writer  intended.  A  building  '  planned,  in  part  at  least, 
'  by  Pope  Leo  I.  more  than  fourteen  hundred  years  ago ' 
(p.  I )  must  have  more  to  say  for  itself  than  is  to  be  found 
in  this  book.  In  point  of  fact,  the  writer  proceeds  in 
his  second  sentence  to  deliver  himself  of  this  shameful 
misrepresentation.  He  says  that  '  whatever  within  the 
'  sphere  of  faith  and  morals  is  found  existing  uncensured 
'  in  the  Latin  Obedience,  must  be  regarded  as  having  the 
'sanction  of  infallibility  at  its  back.' 

By  what  logical  process  can  the  writer  show  that  the 
Vatican  Decree  involves  the  absurd  position  that  the 
attribute  of  Infallibility  is  not  merely  possessed  by  the 
See  of  S.  Peter,  but  that  it  is  exercised  in  every  nook  and 
corner  of  the  world,  on  every  sheet  of  paper  that  issues 
from  the  press?  What  Catholic  ever  maintained  such 
an  absurdity  ?  and  what  are  we  to  think  of  a  grave  society 
like  the  S.  P.  C.  K.  endorsing  and  disseminating  such  a 


Preface 


vii 


misrepresentation,  after  all  that  has  been  written  on  the 
subject  ? 

On  the  second  page,  the  writer  has  the  hardihood 
to  quote  Innocent  III.,  when  speaking  of  'the  Roman 
'  Church ' — i.e.  the  local  Roman  Church — as  though  he 
were  using  the  term  in  its  modern  sense,  as  used  by  the 
Writer  of  the  book. 

The  last  chapter,  on  the  Collapse  of  the  Papal  Suc- 
cession, besides  its  misrepresentation  of  canon  law, 
contains  a  redudio  ad  absurdum  of  the  Anglican  position. 
It  is  amazing  that  a  responsible  society  should  set  its 
seal  to  such  misapplied  ingenuity. 

One  may  well  ask,  Is  it  on  this  line  of  argument  that 
the  Church  of  England  places  its  '  dependence '  ? 

I  conclude  with  the  remark  that  the  following  pages 
are  the  fruit  of  a  conviction,  deep  beyond  words,  that  no 
blessing  that  a  human  soul  can  receive  is  so  great  as 
that  of  entrance  into  communion  with  the  See  of  S.  Peter, 
except,  and  by  reason,  of  the  graces  to  be  found  when 
within.  The  writer  would  take  for  his  own  the  words  of 
those  who  had  discovered  plenty  outside  the  gates  of 
Samaria,  '  We  do  not  well  :  this  day  is  a  day  of  good 
'tidings,  and  we  hold  our  peace.'  'I  believed,  and 
'therefore  have  I  spoken.' 

S.  Charles  College,  Notting  Hill,  London,  W. 
May  1S89 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER  I. 
THE  COUNCIL  OF  JERUSALEM. 

Favourite  subject  with  Anglicans,  7 — The  Author  of  the  '  Roman 
'  Question '  selects  a  single  sentence  and  ignores  the  rest  of  my 
treatment  of  S.  Chrysostom's  evidence,  9-1 1 — He  contends  also 
that  S.  James  must  be  meant  when  S.  Chrysostom  speaks  of 
someone  being  'entrusted  with  the  chief  rule,'  11-14— But  the 
position  occupied  by  S.  Peter  generally,  and  in  particular  at  the 
Council  of  Jerusalem,  is,  according  to  S.  Chrysostom,  one  of 
authority,  14-27— Mistake  of  Symeon  for  Simon  Peter,  27-2S 
— Summary  of  errors  contained  in  the  pamphlet,  29. 


CHAPTER  II. 
'  PETER  HATH  SPOKEN  BY  LEO.' 

Importance  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  35-37— Preliminary 
history— S.  Leo  defines  the  Faith,  39 — The  Robber  Synod— 
S.  Leo  anxious  for  a  Council— teaches  the  Patriarch  of  Con- 
stantinople and  the  Emperor— deprecates  immediate  Council, 
but  consents,  40— The  Synod  assembles — Bows  to  Leo  at  once, 
41 — Why  S.  Cyril  mentioned,  42 — Leo's  Tome  not  reviewed 
for  revision,  42-44 — The  Council's  sentence  on  Dioscorus  owns 
the  authority  of  the  Holy  See,  45 -S.  Cyril's  name  joined  with 
S.  Leo's,  why,  47— Emperor  puts  S.  Leo's  Tome  side  by  side 
with  the  Nicene  Faith,  48— Relationship  of  Rome  to  S.  Peter, 
49- 


* 


X  Contents 

CHAPTER  III. 

THE  CANON  INVALIDATED. 

Constantinople's  ambition,  51,  52 — The  2Sth  Canon  of  Cbalcedon, 
its  expression,  54,  55 — The  Papal  confirmation  deemed  neces- 
sary, 56,  57 — Leo  acted  on  the  ground  of  his  relationship  to 
S.  Peter,  57-60 — Canon  Bright's  account  unsupported,  61  —Mr. 
Gore's  citation  of  the  Council  in  TruUo,  62-64. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

LIBERIUS,  THE  CONFESSOR. 

Anglican  writers  on  Liberius,  65,  66 — Canon  Bright's  admission, 
67 — Contemporary  opinion  on  Liberius,  68 — Sozomen's  account 
untrustworthy,  69  —Passage  from  S.  Jerome  needs  authentica- 
tion, 70  —  Passage  from  S.  Athanasius  fairly  doubted,  71  — 
Liberius  a  great  Confessor,  72 — Difficulties  of  supposing  any 
lapse,  73-76. 

CHAPTER  V. 

HONORIUS  DECLINING  TO  DEFINE. 

Our  Lord's  human  will,  77 — Honorius  entrapped  by  Sergius — 
Monothelism  combated  by  successive  Popes,  80 — Sixth  Council 
condemned  Honorius  for  lack  of  vigilance,  81,  82 — The  in- 
errancy of  the  Holy  See  in  ex  faMe</ra  judgments  assumed,  86. 


CHAPTER  VL 

ALEXANDER  VI.,  THE  POLITICAL  ECCLESIASTIC. 

Use  made  of  Alexander's  life,  88,  89 — The  Homilies  of  the  Church 
of  England,  91 — Burchard's  account  of  Alexander,  93-96 — 
Guicciardini's  account  of  Alexander,  96  —  Lucretia  Borgia, 
98-100 — State  of  things  at  Alexander's  election,  101-103 — 
Alexander's  daily  life  as  Pope,  103,  104 — No  adequate  proof  of 
his  election  having  been  simoniacal,  104-108 — The  Popes  of  the 
1 6th  century,  their  greatness,  no — Alexander's  relation  to  the 
P.apacy  not  that  of  Barlow's  to  the  Anglican  succession,  113. 


Contents 


xi 


CHAPTER  VII. 

HENRY  VIII.,  THE  ECCLF.SI.'^STICAL  P0LITICI.4N. 

The  Royal  supremacy  a  (for/r/w^,  115-I17 — Involved  a  fundamental 
change,  118 — Which  broke  the  continuity  between  the  pre- 
Reformationand  the  post-Reformation  Establishment,  119-124 — 
The  new  status  not  desired  by  the  clergy,  1 26 -1 30 — The  king's 
divorce,  the  real  cause  shown  by  contemporary  evidence, 
130-134 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

ELIZABETH  AND  HER  CLERGY. 

The  old  religion  abolished  by  force,  13S-139 — Ecclesiastical  juris- 
diction taken  over  by  the  queen,  141 — No  diocesan  bishops 
consented  to  Archbishop  Parker's  election,  143 — The  case  of 
Coverdale,  145 — The  Province  in  prison,  147 — Goldwell,  Bishop 
of  S.  Asaph,  148— The  Queen's  exercise  of  jurisdiction,  149 — 
The  fruit  of  this  later  on  in  the  case  of  Archbishop  Abbott,  151 
— Its  immediate  results,  152 -156. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

THE  DECLINE  OF  DOGMA. 

Changed  attitude  of  English  Churchmen  towards  Rome,  157 — De- 
clension in  zeal  for  Dogma,  158-161 — Misrepresentations  of  the 
'  Church  Quarterly  Review,'  161-164 —Reviewer's  accusation  of 
ignorance  unfounded,  ib^—VLi'i  ig7ioratio  elenchi,  i65 — His  in- 
stances of  change  of  teaching:  (i)  M.  Nicolas  speaks  of  no  laxity 
in  the  teaching  body,  168 — (2)  Father  Clarke's  articles  reveal 
no  rift,  but  the  contrary,  170— (3)  M.  Le  Noir's  article  most  de- 
cided on  the  subject  of  hell,  173— In  the  Catholic  Church,  belief 
in  hell  ( I )  rests  on  authority,  1 78  —  (2)  is  balanced  by  authoritative 
teaching  on  Purgatory,  and  Masses  for  the  dead,  179. 


XII 


Contents 


CHAPTER  X. 

PUSEY  AND  LAUD. 

Extraordinary  dependence  placed  on  Dr.  Pusey,  182 — Accounted 
for  by  (l)  his  piety,  183 — (2)  his  chivalry,  184— (3)  his  industry, 
185 — His  mistakes  as  to  the  African  Church,  Mr.  Allies'  book, 
and  Archbishop  Chichele,  185- 189— In  controversy  with  Rome, 
he  loses  his  accuracy,  igi — His  erroneous  theory  of  the  Church's 
note  of  unity,  192 — The  Vatican  decree  not  affected  by  his 
instances  of  Papal  contradictions,  200  —  His  errors  as  to  the 
Immaculate  Conception  of  our  Lady,  204 — Especially  as  to 
Turrecremata,  212 — Archbishop  Laud's  misrepresentation  of 
S.  Augustine,  214. 

CHAPTER  XI. 

THE   LINCOLN   PROSECUTION,  OR  METROPOLITICAL 
JURISDICTION. 

Circumstances  under  which  the  Bishop  of  Lincoln  is  prosecuted,  218 
—  Must  be  some  authority  superior  to  the  Archbishop,  220  — 
Rome  ^vas  owned  as  superior,  221 — Now  it  is  said  that  a  Province 
can  be  autonomous,  and  Africa  is  quoted  as  an  instance,  224 — 
The  case  of  Africa  considered,  in  the  days  of  S.  Augustine,  225 
— The  present  position  of  the  Anglican  Establishment,  233 — 
Toleration  of  contradictory  teaching  incompatible  with  the  idea 
of  a  Church,  236. 

Appendix  on  S.  Jerome's  Letter  to  Evagkius    .       .  239 


INTRODUCTORY  REMARKS. 


A  VERY  influential  writer  in  the  Church  of  England  has 
lately  challenged  my  accuracy  with  respect  to  the 
translation  in  my  book  on  '  Authority '  of  a  passage 
in  S.  Chrysostom's  writings.  His  pamphlet  is  entitled 
'  A  Reason  for  Distrusting  the  Rev.  Luke  Rivington's 
'Appeal  to  the  Fathers.'  I  have  devoted  a  chapter 
(Chap.  I.)  to  the  consideration  of  this  pamphlet,  and 
have,  I  hope,  shown  sufficient  cause  for  rebutting  the 
accusation.  But  there  is  another  point  raised  in  this 
writer's  pamphlet,  to  which  I  have  only  partially  replied 
in  that  chapter.  And  it  is  on  this  point  that  I  wish  to 
make  some  introductory  remarks. 

The  writer  considers  that  from  that  single  sentence 
in  my  book  he  can  discern  the  '  workings  of  my  mind 
'  at  a  great  crisis.'  Were  it  not  that  the  writer's  name  is 
such  an  open  secret,  and  that  his  position  of  esteem  in 
the  Church  of  England  gives  a  peculiar  weight  to  his 
words,  I  should  not  have  thought  it  worth  while  taking 
further  notice  of  these  words. 

As  it  is,  I  feel  constrained  to  protest,  even  more  than 
I  have  done  below  (Chap.  I.)  that  the  single  incident  to 
which  he  refers  as  giving  the  clue  to  the  workings  of  my 
mind  at  a  great  crisis,  was  of  infinitely  less  importance 
than  two  other  points. 

One  of  these,  as  I  have  said  elsewhere,  was  the  History 
of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon.  None  of  my  reviewers  have 

B 


2 


Introductory  Remarks 


attempted  to  answer  my  argument  on  that  head.  One  of 
them,  in  an  article  which  I  forbear  to  characterise,  except 
to  say  that  I  have  never  seen  a  more  thoroughly  unre- 
strained mode  of  writing  (I  mean  the  '  Literary  Church- 
'  man  ')  even  deliberately  asserts  that  I  did  not  write  that 
portion  of  my  book  myself  How  a  paper,  whose  title  con- 
tains in  it  the  word  '  Church,'  can  deliberately  utter  such 
a  falsehood,  I  am  at  a  loss  to  understand.  I  wrote  every 
word  of  it  myself  in  complete  solitude.  It  contained  the 
reason  which  finally  weighed  with  me,  so  far  as  my 
intellectual  conversion  was  concerned.  I  do  not  see  how 
any  member  of  the  English  Church  can  reconcile  his 
position  with  the  history  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon. 
Let  him  read,  for  instance.  Cardinal  Newman's  brilliant 
summary  of  that  Council,  or  Mr.  Allies'  account  of  S. 
Leo  in  his  '  Throne  of  the  Fisherman,'  or  Bishop  Hefele's 
account  of  the  Council  in  his  '  History  of  Church  Councils,' 
not  to  mention  any  longer  accounts,  and  then  let  him 
say  to  himself,  '  Is  the  attitude  of  the  Church  of  England 
'  towards  the  See  of  Rome  in  any  way  capable  of  being 
'  reconciled  with  the  principles  of  Church  life  which  we 
'  find  in  vogue  at  the  Council  of  Chalcedon?'  But  I 
have  added  a  few  thoughts  on  this  subject  in  a  separate 
chapter  (Chap.  II.),  and  therefore  I  proceed  to  a  second 
point,  in  reference  to  what  the  author  of  the  '  Roman 
'  Question  '  calls  the  workings  of  my  mind  at  a  great  crisis. 

I  have  said  that  my  idtitnate  convictions  were  not 
in  the  least  due  to  the  incident  concerning  the  Oxford 
translation  of  S.  Chrysostom,  but  to  the  further  investi- 
gations which  I  zvas  led  to  make. 

But  this  is  not  all,  and  I  am  most  anxious  to  take  the 
opportunity  of  saying  something  further  in  consequence 
of  what  the  author  of  the  '  Roman  Question  '  has  said. 

The  passage  which  he  has  selected  for  his  quotation 
from  my  book  contains  another  reason  for  my  action. 


Introductory  Remarks  3 


I  did  not  give  this  in  full,  as  indeed  I  should  have 
preferred  giving  no  hint  at  all  as  to  such  matters,  only 
circumstances  compelled  me.  I  have  said  that  God  gave 
me  light,  and  that  that  light  came  through  the  study  of 
a  particular  passage  of  the  Church's  life — not,  I  hope,  to 
the  neglect  of  other  passages,  but  with  special  emphasis 
on  that.  This  is  strictly  true.  But  if  this  had  been  all, 
doubtless  I  should  not  have  acted  on  that  light — I 
should  have  dallied  with  my  conviction,  waited,  and 
tampered  with  this  grace  ;  pretended  that  one  needs 
many  more  years  to  settle  the  simple  question  as  to 
which  is  God's  Church  ;  thought  it  humility  to  doubt 
my  capacity  to  settle  such  a  question  at  all ;  listened  to 
the  voice  of  affection,  pleading  for  the  enjoyment  of 
all  the  ties,  and  all  the  esteem,  and  the  many  pleasant 
features  of  life,  which  were  then  mine  ;  and,  above  all, 
perhaps  I  should  have  fallen  back  on  the  idea  that  because 
I  found  myself  where  I  was  in  God's  Providence,  I  ought 
to  remain  there — reasons,  plausible  reasons,  one  and  all 
of  which,  however,  every  Apostle  had  to  set  at  nought, 
and  without  the  disregard  of  which,  no  heathen  could 
ever  enter  the  Christian  fold.  Why  did  I  not  listen  to 
these  plausible  suggestions?  I  expressly  excluded  the 
following  incident  from  my  book,  but  the  author  of  the 
'  Roman  Question'  by  pretending  that  the  passing  incident 
to  which  he  refers  explains  '  the  working  of  my  mind  at 
'  a  great  crisis,'  compels  me  to  speak. 

I  had,  then,  been  coming  to  a  gradual  conclusion  on 
another  matter.  Years  ago  I  began  to  ask  our  Lady's 
intercession,  and  shortly  after  that  I  went  up  to  see 
Cardinal  Newman,  to  be  received.  But  I  was  diverted 
from  my  purpose.  That  grace  was  lost  to  me  through 
giving  in  to  the  temptation  to  wait.  I  was  dissuaded 
from  all  invocation  of  the  Saints  by  three  most  trusted 
divines  in  the  Church  of  England.    In  1887-8,  however, 

*  B  2 


4  Introductory  Remarks 


I  read  again  on  the  subject,  and  in  the  end  of  Januarj- 
1 888  I  came  to  the  conclusion  that  in  repudiating  the 
Invocation  of  the  Saints  we  had  denied  an  article  of  the 
Faith.  East  and  West — I  mean  the  schismatic  East, 
as  well  as  the  Church  in  communion  with  Rome — were 
at  one  on  this  point.  Whether  M.  Podedonostzeff,  who 
replied  to  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  and  the  Lambeth 
Conference,  would  consider  it  right  to  hold  communion 
with  the  Anglican  Establishment  in  spite  of  this,  I  do  not 
know.  "\Mien  things  are  managed  by  a  Procurator,  there 
is  no  knowing  what  the  schismatic  East  might  say  or  do. 
But  the  Patriarch  of  Constantinople,  in  correspondence 
with  Archbishop  Tait,  pointed  out  the  passage  in  the 
Thirt)--nine  Articles  on  the  Invocation  of  Saints  as  '  sa- 
'  vouring  of  noveltj-.'  Certain  it  is  that,  in  all  her  Liturgies 
and  authorised  prayers,  the  Eastern  schism  holds  fast  to 
the  doctrine  of  the  Invocation  of  Saints.  And  yet  I  had 
been  silent  to  the  Saints  for  years.  I  had  not  spoken  to 
our  Lady  for  at  least  seventeen  years.  I  held  that  no 
honest  member  of  the  Anglican  Church  could  invoke 
her  aid.  I  know  that  Dr.  Pusey  said  that  '  we '  should 
not  object  to  the  '  Ave  INIaria '  or  '  Ora  pro  nobis '  in 
itself.  But,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  he  discouraged  its  use, 
and  I  did  the  same.  It  became  clear  to  me,  however, 
that  this  was  wrong,  and  on  the  Feast  of  her  Purification 
I  knelt  down  and  entreated  the  aid  of  her  intercession  in 
this  matter  of  allegiance  to  the  Holy  See.  I  entreated 
her  to  win  for  me,  by  her  glorious  intercession,  light  and 
courage,  for  I  knew  that  if  I  read  things  one  way  I  should 
need  courage  to  act  on  my  con^-ictions.  I  rose  from  my 
knees  with  both.  The  light  which  our  Lord  then  gave 
me  was  too  clear  to  make  extraordinar)'  courage  needful, 
or,  rather,  it  was  that  hght  which,  coming  straight  from 
Him,  is  accompanied  by  the  warmth  of  divine  love,  and 
to  love,  nothing  is  difficult. 


Introductory  Remarks 


5 


Now  I  mention  this  because  an  important  principle 
is  at  stake  in  discussing  the  question  of  the  reasonableness 
of  submission  to  the  See  of  S.  Peter.  It  is,  I  hold, 
capable  of  rigorous  proof  that  such  submission  is  in- 
finitely more  reasonable  than  attachment  to  the  Church 
of  England.  But  the  act  of  submission  belongs  to  the 
supernatural,  and  anyone  who  discusses  the  question, 
as  though  it  could  be  settled  by  human  reason,  is  deluding 
his  fellow-creatures.  Reason  is  equal  to  seeing  that  the 
religious  body  in  communion  with  the  See  of  S.  Peter 
alone  has  the  notes  of  a  Church.  But  something  more 
is  required  than  the  perception  of  this.  Entrance  into 
the  Church  is,  as  the  Holy  Father  said  to  me  last  Easter 
Day,  '  a  special  grace.'  I  added  within  myself,  '  Yes, 
'  and  it  is  not  of  him  that  runneth,  but  of  God  that  showeth 
'mercy'  (Rom.  ix.  i6).  I  say  this  because  often  the  last 
temptation  with  which  the  Evil  One  plies  the  soul  is  the 
suggestion,  '  You  are  not  worthy.'  No,  indeed,  and  God 
often  calls  those  who  seem  the  least  worthy  of  His  grace. 
It  is  the  mystery  of  predestination. 

It  is,  therefore,  in  vain  that  Anglicans  endeavour  to 
fathom  the  mystery  of  a  call  into  the  Catholic  Church. 
God  calls  'things  that  are  not '  [i.e.  that  are  thought  to  be 
nothing]  'to  bring  to  nought  things  that  are.'  He  calls  a 
Matthew  or  a  Magdalen,  and  renders  us  no  account  of 
the  reason  of  His  call.  He  calls  them  often  to  leave  all 
at  once — some,  indeed,  to  go  bury  their  father — but  others 
to  let  the  dead  bury  their  dead,  and  to  follow  the  call. 
We  who  are  called  can  least  of  all  explain  why  we  are. 
We  can  see  that  certain  arguments,  or  facts,  or  reasons 
on  which  we  once  rested,  have  no  value.  But  why  we 
see  this  so  plainly  we  cannot  say.  We  have  to  give  a 
reason  for  the  hope  that  is  in  us,  and  we  can  give  it. 
But  something  we  cannot  explain.  We  only  know  '  the 
'  Spirit  blowcth  where  it  listeth.'  We  are  bound  to  explain 


6 


Introductory  Remarks 


to  others  that  their  arguments  do  not  hold,  that  their 
defences  are  insufficient,  and  that  they  ought,  in  good 
reason,  to  follow  in  the  same  track  ;  but  that  is  all  we  can 
do,  save  to  pray  ;  and  the  Lord,  who  opened  the  heart  of 
Lydia  that  she  attended  to  the  things  spoken  by  Paul, 
may  work  the  same  in  the  hearts  of  those  whom  we 
address.  '  Therefore  judge  nothing  before  the  time  ' 
(i  Cor.  iv.  5). 


Tlie  Coiuicil  of  Jerusalem 


7 


CHAPTER  I. 

THE  COUNCIL  OF  JERUSALEM. 

Kal  opa  ovep  ^XP^"  vo/xodiTridrivat  on  ovSfv  (pvAamiv  Thv  vSfJuov,  & 
ndrpos  fiari-yaye'  t)>  Si  ri/jL(Tepov,  Kal  irdXai  irapaSex^^"  'TOvto 
oItos  (pri<ri.  And  notice  that  what  had  to  be  enacted  as  law, 
viz.  that  we  have  not  to  keep  the  law,  Peter  introduced.  But 
the  domestic  practice,  and  what  had  been  handed  down  of  old, 
this  he  (James)  speaks  of. — S.  Chrysostom. 

There  are  few  subjects  to  which  an  English  High 
Churchman  turns  more  readily  than  to  the  Council  of 
Jerusalem.  Travelling  some  years  ago  to  the  South  of 
India  for  two  days  and  two  nights  on  a  stretch,  I  had 
for  my  companion,  during  part  of  my  journey,  a  native 
priest.  His  white  cassock,  red  cincture,  red  biretta,  and 
dark  face,  for  he  belonged  to  the  South,  formed  a  perfect 
picture.  Add  to  that,  the  exquisite  politeness  of  the 
Hindu,  with  that  dash  of  energy  which  comes  from  '  the 
'  spiritual  washing,'  the  Tamil  name  for  Baptism.  It  was 
not  long  before  we  were  in  conversation  on  religious 
matters.  I  remember  registering  an  inward  vow  that  I 
would  do  nothing  to  disturb  that  good  man's  faith.  I 
thought  that  in  controversy  I  was  sure  of  having  the 
best  of  it.  But  this  good  priest's  zeal  could  not  resist 
endeavouring  to  show  me  that  if  I  held  as  much  truth 
as  I  did,  I  ought  to  hold  more,  and  to  hold  it  all  on  a 
different  basis.  Our  conversation  soon  turned  on  the 
Council  of  Jerusalem.  This  good  man,  as  night  came  on. 


8 


TJie  Council  of  Jerusalem 


lit  his  lamp,  and  produced  his  Bible,  and  we  compared 
notes,  he  with  his  Vulgate  translation  of  S.  James's  word, 
judico,  '  I  judge '  —  I,  with  my  English  translation, 
'Wherefore  my  sentence  is.'  It  seemed  to  him  perfectly 
astonishing,  as  a  mere  matter  of  common  sense,  that  I 
did  not  see  that  the  prominent  position  in  the  Council  was 
held  by  S.  Peter,  and  that  the  expression  S.  James  used 
was  what  any  member  of  the  Council  might  use,  as  they 
severally  gave  their  judgment  on  the  subject  in  hand. 
He  closed  the  Sacred  Volume,  saying,  with  the  most 
perfect  courtesy,  something  to  the  effect  that  it  is  an  easy 
matter  to  twist  the  Scripture. 

There  are  texts  which  haunt  some  minds  in  their 
spiritual  life.  And  there  are  texts,  and  sometimes  one 
by  itself,  that  return  and  greet  you,  in  various  ways,  at  the 
various  turns  of  your  life.  This  text  has  just  been  dealt 
with  in  the  pamphlet  to  which  I  have  referred,  called 
'A  Reason  for  Distrusting  the  Rev.  Luke  Rivington's 
'  Appeal  to  the  Fathers.'  That  pamphlet  selects  a  certain 
passage  from  my  book  on  '  Authority,'  in  which  the 
passage  of  Holy  Scripture  concerning  the  Council  of 
Jerusalem  is  dealt  with,  and  its  contention  is  that  my 
words  in  reference  to  it,  viz.,  this  passage,  show  the 
'  workings  '  of  my  mind  '  at  a  great  crisis,'  and  that  at 
that  crisis  I  made  a  great  mistake  about  S.  Chr}-sostom's 
belief  as  to  the  supremacy  of  S.  Peter,  especially  as  to 
his  position  at  the  Council  of  Jerusalem  in  relation  to 
S.  James, 

In  this  chapter,  therefore,  I  propose  to  deal  with  this 
said  pamphlet  by  the  author  of  the  '  Roman  Question ' ; 
and,  in  the  course  of  my  remarks  on  it,  with  the  Council 
of  Jerusalem  itself. 

"W  ith  regard  to  the  wTiter  of  the  pamphlet  I  hope  to 
show  (i),  that  he  has  misrepresented  me,  and  (2),  that  he 
has  misinterpreted  S.  Chr)-sostom. 


TJie  Council  of  Jerusalem 


9 


A  Personal  Matter. 

I  St.  Afy  critic  has  misrepresented  me. — He  has  quoted 
a  page  of  my  book  which  is  introduced  to  explain  one, 
and  only  one  thing,  as  though  it  explained  something 
else. 

I  have  there  stated  that  I  was  started  on  a  certain 
field  of  inquiry  by  an  incident  which  occurred  in  my 
missionary  life  in  India.  I  had  quoted  a  passage  from 
the  translation  of  S.  Chrysostom  in  the  Pusey  Library 
of  the  Fathers  against  a  Catholic  bishop,  and  I  discovered 
afterwards  that  a  certain  assumption  was  made  in  that 
translation  through  the  insertion  of  a  word  not  in  the 
original  text.  The  assumption  was  that  a  certain  pro- 
noun necessarily  referred  to  a  particular  person ;  for  the 
person's  name  was  substituted  for  the  said  pronoun  with- 
out note  or  comment.  This  was  the  gist  of  my  discovery. 
A  sentence  also  was  transposed.  My  plain  contradiction 
to  the  said  Bishop's  contention  was  based  on  the  substitu- 
tion of  the  name  for  the  pronoun,  and  this  substitution 
is  (no  doubt  unintentionally)  rendered  plausible  by  the 
transposition  of  the  sentence. 

But  it  was  not  on  this  passage  that  I  based  my  belief 
as  to  S.  Chrysostom's  teaching  on  S.  Peter's  primacy.  / 
have  never  said  this.  My  critic  has  made  it  appear  (p.  5)  as 
if  I  did,  by  adding  the  last  sentence  he  quotes  from  me,  as 
though  it  related  to  what  had  gone  before,  instead  of  to  .^^^j^ 
that  which  follows.  After  relating  the  incident  and  the  p- 
mistake  in  the  Oxford  translation,  I  say  '  Indeed,  &c.  ' 
which  marks  a  transition  to  something  that  is  coming. 
In  the  next  sentence,  which  my  critic  refuses  to  quote 
(although  I  had  drawn  his  attention  to  it  in  cor- 
respondence), I  say,  '  I  would  ask  anyone  who  reads 
'this  letter,  seriously  to  weigh  the  following  account  of 


lo  Tlie  Cotmcil  of  Jerusalem 

'  S.  Chn  sostom's  teaching.'  There  is  not  a  word  in  my 
critic  about  this  '  following  account.'  Yet  it  is  there  that 
I  give  my  reasons  for  holding  that  S.  Chrj-sostom  under- 
stood S.  Peter  to  act  on  this,  as  on  all  occasions,  as  the 
Head  of  the  Church  under  Christ.  It  is,  then,  distinctly 
unfair  to  take  a  portion  of  my  personal  narrative  only, 
and  to  give  people  to  understand,  as  the  writer  does  on 
page  9,  that  I  based  my  teaching  as  to  S.  Chr}'sostom's 
belief  in  the  supremacy  of  S.  Peter,  ori  this  disputed 
passage.  Indeed  he  goes  further;  for  he  says,  'Mr. 
'  Rivington  rests  his  case  on  a  single  sentence,  not  regard- 
'  ing  the  context.'  AMiy,  I  have  given  the  context,  wheti  I 
come  to  7ny  proof!  the  context  including,  what  my  critic 
deliberately  (\\-ithout  rhyme  or  reason  that  I  can  see) 
excludes,  viz.  the  previous  Homily !  I  know  not  how 
to  characterise  this  method  of  dealing  with  an  author.  I 
particularly  asked  my  readers  '  seriously  to  weigh '  the 
account  that  followed ;  and  it  extends  over  fourteen  pages 
of  careful  reasonings  in  the  course  of  which  I  deal  with 
the  Council  of  Jerusalem.  The  worst  of  it  is,  that  I  had 
already  pointed  this  out  to  the  writer  in  a  private  corre- 
spondence, and  I  have  seldom  been  more  surprised  in  my 
life  than  when  I  read  his  amazing  misstatement  of  my  own 
argument  repeated  in  a  public  accusation.  Why  omit 
that  to  which  I  drew  attention  as  the  real  proof,  and 
substitute  a  passage  used  in  controversy  with  a  Roman 
Catholic  Bishop  which  I  was  careful  to  say  merely 
started  me  on  my  path  of  inquiry,  but  by  no  means 
supplied  the  material  for  my  ultimate  conviction  ? 

I  have  a  right  to  complain  of  this.  When  I  say, 
'  Indeed,  I  do  not  see  how  it  is  possible  to  mistake  S. 
'  Chrj  sostom's  behef  in  the  supremacy  of  S.  Peter  as 
'  being  identical  wnth  the  teaching  of  Rome  to-day,'  and 
proceed  to  say,  '  I  would  ask  anyone  who  reads  this 
'  letter,  seriously  to  weigh  the  following  account  of  S. 


TJie  Council  of  Jcnisalci/i 


II 


'  Chrysostom's  teaching,'  it  is  contrary  to  all  rules  of  justice 
to  take  another  parenthetical  passage,  introduced  for  a 
different  purpose,  and,  on  the  strength  of  that,  to  endea- 
vour to  discredit  my  appeal  to  the  Fathers.  And  again, 
how  could  the  writer  have  written  what  he  has,  if  he  had 
carefully  marked  what  I  have  actually  said  about  the 
passage  with  which  I  shall  now  proceed  to  deal  ? 

For  I  have  nowhere  said  that  the  crucial  words, 
'  invested  with  the  chief  rule,'  apply  to  S.  Peter.  I  have 
observed  a  certain  restraint  in  dealing  with  the  passage, 
and  have  spoken  merely  of  a  possibility.  What  I 
reprehended  was  the  Oxford  translator's  settling  the 
question  by  merely  putting  '  James  '  without  further  ado. 
Here  then  I  might  leave  the  question — with  this  simple 
statement — that  my  critic  is  dealing  not  with  my  argument, 
but  with  his  own  misrepresentation  of  it. 

2ndly.  Aly  critic  has  misinterpreted  S.  Chrysostoiu. 
He  sets  out  to  prove  that  at  the  Council  of  Jerusalem, 
S.  James  held  the  office  of  '  presiding  judge,'  '  having 
'  there  the  chief  rule,'  and  that  S.  Peter  (to  use  his  own 
words)  was  'in  a  position  of  inferiority.'  He  considers 
that  S.  Peter  was  '  primus  inter  pares '  amongst  the 
Apostles,  by  divine  appointment  (p.  16)  ;  but  that  his 
Primacy  did  not  include  the  Presidency  of  the  Coun- 
cil. And  this  he  considers  to  be  involved  in  what 
S.  Chrysostom  says  in  his  account  of  the  Council  of 
Jerusalem.  In  the  writer's  translation  S.  Chrysostom 
says,  '  And  see,  after  Peter  Paul  speaks,  and  none  chides 
'him.  James  waits  patiently  and  does  not  start  up.  For  he 
'  (cKea'o;)  had  been  invested  with  the  chief  rule.  Nothing 
'  speaks  John,  nothing  the  other  Apostles.' 

My  contention  was,  that  the  pronoun  '  he  '  (being  the 
word  in  Greek  which,  when  two  people  are  contrasted, 
often  means  the  more  remote,  or  the  first-mentioned  of 
the  two,  and  usually  refers  to  the  most  prominent  per- 


12 


TJic  Council  of  Jerusalem 


son  or  thing,  being  a  pronoun  of  emphasis)  viay  in  the 
above  sentence,  quite  naturally  refer  to  Peter.  My  critic 
contends  that  it  cannot  refer  to  any  other  save  James. 

I  may  remark,  in  passing,  that,  supposing  for  the 
moment  that  the  words,  '  he  was  invested  with  the  chief 
'  rule '  refer  to  S.  James's  position  at  the  Council,  and  to 
his  relationship  to  the  rest  of  the  Apostles,  as  my  critic 
contends,  the  question  still  remains,  by  whom  ^\as  he 
thus  invested  ?  It  could  not  have  been  expressly  by  our 
Lord  :  it  could  only  have  been  by  the  rest  of  the 
Apostles.  Was  it,  then,  so  arranged  by  the  Apostles  with 
'  Peter  at  their  head,'  i.e.,  as  Holy  Scripture  so  often  calls 
'  the  Apostolic  band,  by  '  Peter  and  those  that  were  with 
'  him  '  ?  In  this  case  the  Anglican  contention  would  gain 
nothing  by  this  passage. 

But  I  proceed  to  show  that  it  is  in  the  highest  degree 
unlikely  that  S.  Chrysostom  meant  '  James  '  when  he  said 
'  he  (emphatic)  was  invested  with  the  chief  rule but  that, 
on  the  contrary,  it  is  at  least  true,  as  I  have  said  in  the 
passage  from  my  book  on  '  Authority  '  for  which  my  critic 
arraigns  me,  that  it  '  may  quite  naturally  refer  to  S.  Peter.' 
Be  it  noted,  then,  that  if  the  mere  possibility  of  its  referring 
to  S.  Peter  is  established,  the  whole  of  my  critic's  con- 
tention falls  to  the  ground,  and  the  '  distrust '  with  which 
he  would  inspire  the  public  as  to  myself  must  be  trans- 
ferred. JNIy  original  quarrel  with  the  Oxford  transla- 
tion was  not  for  its  saying  that  this  emphatic  pronoun 
MAY  refer  to  S.  James,  but  for  assuming  that  it  must, 
and  therefore  giving  no  hint  that  S.  Chrysostom,  instead 
of  using  the  word  '  James,'  had  used  a  certain  pronoun. 
And  the  author  of  the  '  Roman  Question '  has  reduced 
the  matter  to  this  simple  issue. 

Now,  in  the  first  place,  the  words,  '  For  he  was  in- 
'  vested  with  the  chief  rule,'  must  explain  something.  If 
they  refer  to  James  what  do  they  explain  ?    '  James  waits 


The  Council  of  Jerusalem 


13 


'  patiently  and  does  not  start  up.  For  "  he  "  had  been 
'  invested  with  the  chief  rule.'  How  can  his  having  been 
invested  with  the  chief  rule  explain  his  not  getting  up  to 
speak  ?  We  shall  see  that  if  it  refers  to  S.  Peter,  it  gives 
a  good  reason. 

Secondly,  will  anyone  venture  to  say  that  a  pronoun 
which  so  often  refers  to  a  person  more  remote,  and  is 
generally  emphatic,  cannot  here  be  quite  naturally  referred 
to  S.  Peter  or  S.  Paul,  who  are  the  more  remote  persons 
mentioned  !  It  is  used  once  in  this  very  Homily  for  the 
more  remote  of  two  persons. 

It  is,  therefore,  impossible  to  say  that  the  said  pro- 
noun necessarily,  as  my  critic,  or  '  without  any  doubt '  as 
Mr.  Gore,  asserts,  refers  to  S.  James.  Such  reference  cbims,' 
renders  the  insertion  of  the  sentence  meaningless,  and  is  P' 
not  forced  upon  us  by  the  word  used.  And  so,  thirdly,  it 
is  to  the  wider  context  that  we  must  look  to  determine  the 
reference.  And  that  context  we  shall  see  furnishes  us 
with  good  reason  for  referring  the  words,  '  for  he '  (that 
one)  '  was  invested  with  the  chief  rule,'  to  S.  Peter.  But 
the  immediate  context  suggests  at  least  the  possibility 
of  reference  to  Peter.  For  the  gist  of  the  previous 
sentence  is  that  S.  Peter's  speech  had  secured  to  S. 
Paul  a  hearing  which  the  animosity  against  him  would 
not  have  permitted.  Hence  S.  Peter  is  really  the  promi- 
nent subject  of  the  sentence,  and  consequently  the  par- 
ticular Greek  pronoun  would  most  naturally  refer  to  him. 

I  conceive,  then,  that  I  am  well  within  the  mark  when 
I  said  that  the  emphatic  pronoun  '  may  quite  naturally 
'  refer  to  S.  Peter ; '  and  that  my  critic  is  mistaken  in 
urging  that  the  said  pronoun  cannot  refer  to  anyone  but 
S.  James.  And  this  being  so,  the  Oxford  translator  was 
not  justified  in  simply  translating  the  pronoun  Iku.vo%  by 
the  word  '  James '  without  note  or  comment. 

My  critic  seems  to  have  been  misled  by  the  words 


14 


Tlie  Council  of  Jerusalem 


in  a  following  paragraph  which  he  translates  '  in  high 
'authority,'  and  which  he  looks  upon  as  an  allusion  to  the 
words  '  chief  rule.'  The  former,  however,  seems  to  me 
precisely  the  expression  S.  Chrysostom  would  use  of  S. 
James,  if  he  was  thinking  of  his  relationship  to  the  con- 
verts of  Jerusalem,  and  precisely  the  word  that  he  would 
not  use  of  his  relationship  to  his  brother-Apostles. 
Whereas  the  expression,  '  entrusted  with  the  lead '  (the 
true  meaning  of  dp^^;  '"^  these  Homilies)  is  precisely,  as 
we  shall  see,  S.  Chrysostom's  expression  for  S.  Peter. 

But  to  understand  why  the  expression  not  only  may 
quite  naturally  refer  to  S.  Peter,  which  is  all  that  I 
maintained  in  my  book  on  '  Authority,'  but  also  is  most 
naturally  referred  to  him,  as  I  am  prepared  to  show,  it 
will  be  necessary  to  describe  the  situation.  And  so  many 
Anglicans  seem  to  misapprehend  the  whole  passage  in 
Holy  Scripture  relating  to  the  Council  of  Jerusalem,  that 
it  will  be  advisable  to  enter  somewhat  into  detail. 

The  Council  of  Jerusalem. 

The  greatest  difficulty  with  which  the  Apostolic  age 
had  to  deal  was  now  in  full  play.  The  old  Jewish  con- 
verts could  not  realise  that  the  Law  had  so  entirely  passed 
away  as  that  no  necessity  remained  for  the  observance 
of  its  peculiar  precepts.  They  would  have  welcomed 
Gentiles  into  the  fold,  but  only  on  condition  of  their 
observing  certain  parts  of  the  Ceremonial  Law.  S. 
Paul's  teaching  and  practice  offended  their  notions  of 
what  was  due  to  the  Mosaic  observances.  They  specially 
objected  that  he  was  not  in  concert  with  the  older 
Apostles,  such  as  S.  Peter  and  S.  James. 

S.  Paul,  under  special  inspiration  from  our  Lord, 
decided  to  go  up  to  Jerusalem  (Gal.  ii.).  He  had 
already,  fourteen  years  before,  been  to  visit  S.  Peter. 


The  Council  of  Jerusalem 


15 


On  that  visit  S.  Chrysostom  is  most  eloquent  ;  as  he  is 
on  their  subsequent  contention.  There  he  insists  on  the 
perfect  agreement  between  S.  Peter  and  S.  Paul  in  the 
matter  of  to  Krjpvyf^a  (the  doctrine).  He  insists  upon  it  J^; 
that  the  contention  between  S.  Peter  and  S.  Paul  argued 
no  inferiority  on  the  part  of  S.  Peter  ;  but  that,  on  the 
contrary,  the  scene  was  arranged  by  S.  Peter  himself  to 
take  place  publicly.  By  this  means  his  more  difficult 
subjects,  for  whom  he  feared  (as  S.  Chrysostom  says) 
lest  they  should  apostatise,  would  be  encouraged  to  give 
in  on  seeing  the  public  adoption  by  him  of  S.  Paul's 
line  of  conduct,  which  he  considered  the  best.  And 
by  way  of  emphasising  the  superiority  of  S.  Peter  to  S. 
Paul,  he  mentions,  amongst  other  things,  S.  Paul's  visit 
to  S.  Peter,  as  showing  his  estimate  of  his  position.  So 
here  S.  Paul  goes  up  to  Jerusalem,  not  to  all  the 
Apostles,  but  the  three  who  were  in  a  position  of  special 
authority,  if  one  may  so  speak,  as  'pillars.'  These  three, 
S.  Chrysostom  says,  were  S.  Peter,  S.  James,  and  S. 
John  :  but  he  adds  that  S.  Peter  and  S.  James  were, 
again,  in  a  peculiarly  prominent  position  there.  S.  Peter 
had  been  '  entrusted '  (it  is  the  very  word  which  occurs 
in  our  disputed  passage)  'with  the  Jews  and  S.  James 
was  Bishop  of  Jerusalem  ;  S.  Peter  with  the  higher  range 
of  duty  ;  S.  James  in  '  high  authority,' but  not  with  the  chief 
rule.  Their  sphere  of  special  work  was  so  far  conter- 
minous that  S.  Peter  had  a  special  relation  to  the  Jewish 
converts,  as  being  what  S.  James  was  not,  the  Apostle 
of  the  circumcision,  and  these  including  S.  James's 
flock. 

A  meeting  was  held  at  Jerusalem  to  welcome  S.  Paul 
and  S.  Barnabas.  It  was  probably  at  this  meeting  that 
it  was  found  how  perfectly  at  one  they  all  were  in  their 
dogmatic  teaching  as  to  the  relation  of  the  Law  to  the 
Gospel.     They  added  nothing  to  S.  Paul  in  the  way  of 


i6 


The  Council  of  Jencsalem 


instruction  and  information  :  there  was  nothing  to  add 
(see  Lightfoot  on  Gal.  ii.). 

The  fifth  verse  probably  relates  not  to  this  meeting, 
but  to  immediately  subsequent  action. 

There  was  then  a  second  meeting,  at  which  it  was 
probably  decided  that  S.  Peter  should  deal  with  the 
dogmatic  question,  on  which  we  know  from  Gal.  ii.  the 
Apostles  were  perfectly  at  one  ;  and  S.  James  was  to 
announce  the  disciplinary  enactment  which  would  wind 
up  the  proceedings — not  quite  (as  the  Oxford  transla- 
tion of  S.  Chrysostom's  Homily  has  it)  'the  matter 
'  under  discussion,'  for  it  is  plural  ;  but  rather,  the  pro- 
ceedings, the  business.  For  S.  James  was  not  implicated 
in  the  disputes  that  had  arisen,  but  was  well  known  for 
his  adherence  to  the  old  Law,  and,  from  being  Bishop  of 
Jerusalem,  would  be  a  special  authority  with  these 
troubled  and  troubling  Judaizers.  Although  not,  as  S. 
Peter  was,  entrusted  with,  or  invested  with,  the  rule  over 
the  whole  body  of  Jewish  converts  he  was  Bishop  of 
Jerusalem,  where  the  Temple  was,  with  all  the  associa- 
tions of  that  once  holy  city. 

Verse  7  is  thought  to  give  the  account  of  a  third 
meeting,  when  the  multitude  {v.  12)  was  also  present,  for 
in  V.  6  it  looks  rather  as  though  the  Apostles  and  elders 
were  by  themselves. 

But  whether  the  second  or  the  third  meeting,  it  was 
the  occasion  for  S.  Peter  to  come  to  the  front. 

Who,  then,  was  S.  Peter  according  to  S.  Chrysos- 
tom  ? 

Much  depends  on  this. 

S.  Peter  was  '  the  mortal  man '  '  to  whom  our  Lord 
'  entrusted  {ivex^lpiai}  the  power  over  all  things  in  heaven 
'  when  he  gave  him  the  keys.' 

He  it  was  of  whom  (perhaps  in  the  previous  Lent  at 
Antioch)  S.  Chrysostom  had  spoken  as  the  '  head  of  the 


Tlie  Council  of  Jerusalem 


17 


'  choir  or  band,  so  that,  on  that  account,  even  Paul  went 

Horn.  83  in 

'  up  to  see  him  rather  than,  or  beyond,  the  rest.'   This  S.  Joann. : 
Chrysostom  says  in  order  to  account  for  our  Lord  passing  ^"^gj^""' 
by  the  others,  and  addressing  His  question  '  Lovest  thou 
'  Me?'  to  Peter.  This  is  he  of  whom,  in  the  same  passage, 
S.  Chrysostom  speaks  as  having  been  '  entrusted  with 
'  the  presidency  of  the  brethren,'  which  he  says  explains 
his  asking  about  S.  John's  future.    This  is  he  to  whom 
our  Lord  '  entrusted  the  world '  (again  the  same  word  as 
is  translated  '  invested  with '  in  the  disputed  passage)  ; 
he  it  is  whose  tears  had  washed  away  his  denial  '  in  order  ^ 
'  that  he  might  become  the  first  of  the  Apostles,  and  be  Jud^os. 
'  entrusted'  (again  the  same  word)  'with  the  whole  world  ;' 
and  again  in  another  Homily  this  beautiful  preacher  of 
the  restorative  power  of  penitence  says  that  the  '  power 
'  of  tears '  brought  him  back  again  to  his  former  honour, 
and  '  entrusted  him '  (again  the  same  word)  '  with  the 
'  presidency  over  the  oecumenical  Church,'  'and,  what  is 
'  more  than  all,  showed  him  to  us  as  having  a  greater  love  Hom.  v  de 
'  to  the  Lord  than  all  the  Apostles.' 

This  is  he  of  whom  the  Saint  says,  '  Why  did  he  shed 
'  His  blood?  That  he  might  win  these  sheep,  whom  He 
'  entrusted '  {Iv^^ilpLutv,  the  same  word  again)  '  to  Peter 
'  and  those  after  him.^  The  pronoun  here  is  the  same 
emphatic  one  as  is  used  in  the  disputed  passage  :  8ia  tL  Sacerd.  1.  ii. 

Ko.i  TO  ULfia  e^e^^eev  ,  iva  ra  Trpopara  KTrjfrrjrai  ravra,  a 
T(3  neVpo)  Koi  TOis  /xer'  eKelvov  iv€)(fcpLrr€V.  Cf.  the  disputed 
passage  e/<€tvos  yap  yjv  rrjv  ap)(r]V  iyK€y(€Lpi(Tixivo'i. 

Omitting  several  similar  notices,  this  is  he,  again,  who 
was  '  entrusted  with  the  presidency  over  the  Jews.'  He  Ho 
was  '  the  master,'  the  term  S.  Chrysostom  so  often  applies 
to  our  Lord.  This  is  he  of  whom  S.  Chrysostom  says 
that  'If  John,  if  James,  if  Paul,  if  any  other  whatsoever,  ibid. 
'  appear  doing  anything  great  after  this,  still  this  Peter  is 
'  beyond  them  all. 

c 


p. 


lorn,  in 
faciem. 


i8  TJie  Council  of  Jerusalem 

S.  Paul  considered  himself,  S.  Chn-sostom  tells  us, 
the  servant  'not  only  of  Peter,  the  head  of  all  those  saintly 
'  men,  but  of  all  the  Apostles,'  and  he  'knew  what  great 
'  precedency  {-poSf>La) '  Peter  was  to  enjoy.' 

These  are  but  a  few  of  the  passages  which  I  have 
noted ;  but  they  are  sufficient  to  show  how  S.  Chrv  sos- 
tom,  who  constantly  uses  that  particular  pronoun,  with 
its  special  emphasising  power,  of  S.  Peter,  naturally  adds 
to  S.  Peter's  name,  that  it  was  he  who  was  entrusted 
with  a  peculiar  charge,  beyond  the  rest. 

A  bishop,  according  to  S.  Chr^sostom  (Lib.  ii.  De 
Sacerd.),  has  an  opportunity  of  showing  his  love  to  our 
Lord  similar  to  that  which  S.  Peter  enjoyed.  S.  Peter, 
through  the  exercise  of  his  office,  was  to  be  empowered  to 
surpass  the  rest  of  the  Apostles.  And  so  a  bishop,  in  the 
exercise  of  his,  was  to  be  able  to  surpass  other  Christians. 
He  was  to  be  set  over  all  the  things  of  God,  not  merely 
bodily  concerns,  but  the  interests  of  the  soul,  and  thus 
could  exhibit  greater  love  :  ravra  TrpdrTon;  a  kol  tov  Herpov 
TTOtoviTa  e(f>rjae  Bwrjaea-Bai  kol  twv  a— ooToAajv  v—epaKovriaai 
roi's  XoL-ovs.  S.  Chr}-sostom  continually  contrasts  S. 
Peter  with  the  other  Apostles. 

And  now  how  has  S.  Chrj'sostom  already  spoken  of 
S.  Peter  in  these  \ery  Homilies  ? 

He  has  already  used  a  kindred  expression  of  S.  Peter 
to  explain  his  action  in  the  first  gathering  of  the  faithful 
after  the  Ascension.  S.  Peter,  he  tells  us,  '  acts  first 
'  with  authority  in  the  matter,  as  having  been  entrusted 
'  with  all  of  them'  (same  word  as  is  translated  'invested') ; 
for  to  him  Christ  said,  '  And  thou,  one  day  having  turned, 
'  strengthen  thy  brethren.'  The  brethren  here  are  clearly, 
from  the  context,  the  Apostles. 

Do  we  not  already  see  what  is  S.  Chr)-sostom's  natural 

'  Trpoiipos  is  the  word  used  of  those  who  presided  at  any  meet- 
ing in  the  Council  of  Xicsea. 


The  Council  of  Jerusalem 


19 


epithet  for  S.  Peter  ?  And  he  speaks  of  him  in  the 
next  sentence  as  constantly  imitating  the  Master  in  not 
giving  his  own  opinion  so  much  as  that  of  the  Scrip- 
tures. 

And  continually  (it  must  be  read  for  it  to  be  felt  how 
continually)  S.  Chrysostom  is  praising  S.  Peter  for  the 
mildness  with  which  he  exercised  his  authority,  though 
he  could  be  forcible. 

His  very  shadow  did  what  our  Lord's  did  not — '  this 
'  did  not  happen  to  the  Christ ' — it  was  an  instance  of 
the  greater  works  which  His  own  were  to  do. 

And  when  he  is  in  prison,  the  whole  Church  prays 
for  him — and  why  ?  ^repi  ra  Kaipia.  Xovkov  rjv  6  ayoV — 
'the  struggle  was  now  for  the  vital  parts.'  Now  that  S. 
Peter's  life  is  in  danger,  the  '  vitals '  of  the  Church  were 
being  attacked.  Then  S.  Chrysostom  tells  us  that  the 
*  headship  '  in  Jerusalem  itself  lay  with  three,  i.e.  Peter, 
James,  and  John,  but  especially  with  Peter  and  James, 
S.  Peter  being  the  Apostle  of  the  Circumcision,  and 
S.  James  in  the  (clearly  inferior)  office  of  Bishop  of 
Jerusalem. 

And  now  we  come  to  the  Council  of  Jerusalem. 

It  is  quite  incorrect  to  say,  as  my  critic  does,  that  the 
Homily  in  question  gives  S.  Chrysostom's  explanation 
of  what  took  place  at  the  Council  of  Jerusalem  (p.  6). 

All  his  difficulties  seem  to  me  to  arise  from  not 
having  realised  that  S.  Chrysostom  devotes  two  Homi- 
lies— not  one  only — to  this  subject.  Hence  he  misses  the 
proportion  in  S.  Chrysostom's  teaching.  He  makes  S. 
Chrysostom  simply  '  contrast '  S.  Peter  and  S.  James, 
instead  of,  as  he  really  does,  also  likening  them  to  each 
other.  The  virtue  which  my  critic  seems  to  think  is 
peculiarly  ascribed  to  S.  James,  is,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
ascribed  to  S.  Peter  in  the  previous  Homily,  and  S. 
James's  exercise  of  it  follows  S  Peter's.    Now  what  part 

c  2 


20 


The  Cotmcil  of  Jerusalem 


does  S.  Peter  take  in  the  last  of  the  meetings  at  Jerusa- 
lem ?  The  Apostles  (if  we  may  trust  Dr.  Lightfoot's 
and  Dr.  Bollinger's  opinion  as  to  Gal.  ii.),  had  already 
discovered  their  perfect  unanimity  on  the  doctrine. 
There  was  therefore  no  room  for  persuading  07ie  another. 
What  did  S.  Peter  do  ? 

Remember  S.  Peter  is  the  one,  according  to  S.  Chry- 
sostom's  uniform  teaching,  who  was  '  entrusted  with  the 
Jews'  (eyKe;)(£tptrr/^ei'os,  see  p.  1 3)  and  again  'entrusted' 
(same  word)  '  with  the  presidency  over  the  brethren,'  and 
'at  the  summit  of  all'  This,  we  have  seen,  is  S.  Chry- 
sostom's  ordinary  epithet  for  S.  Peter,  in  all  his  writings. 
It  seems,  if  I  may  so  say,  to  slip  from  his  golden  lips  in 
season  and  out  of  season. 

But  there  is  another  description  of  S.  Peter,  which 
S.  Chrysostom  begs  us  to  bear  in  mind  all  through,  and 
to  which  he  frequently  alludes  in  other  writings.  It  gives 
an  accident  or  consequence  of  his  position.  S.  Peter  is, 
with  S.  Chrysostom,  the  one  who  by  virtue  of  his  leader- 
ship brings  things  in,  who  makes  the  commencement  in  all 
conceivable  circumstances. 

In  his  commentary  on  the  first  chapter  of  the  Acts  he 
tells  us  that  S.  Peter  'as  the  one  entrusted  by  Christ 
'  with  the  flock,  as  the  first  of  the  band,  always  first  begins 
'  the  speaking.^  This  is  the  Saint's  description  of  him  : 
'  He  always  begins,  and  that  by  virtue  of  his  having  been 
'  entrusted  with  the  care  of  the  flock  ' — the  one  flock.  And 
even  thus  early  he  speaks  of  S.  James  saying  nothing, 
although  he  received  the  oversight  (or  episcopate)  in  Jerusa- 
lem. That  is  to  say,  that  S.  Peter  begins  or  opens  the 
discussion  on  every  occasion  (a.p^(.Tai  tov  Xoyov),  as  having 
been  entrusted  with  the  flock,  whilst  S.  James,  although 
in  high  authority,  is  silent,  because  not  in  such  high 
authority  as  S.  Peter.  '  Peter,'  he  says,  '  begins  as  the 
'  very  one  entrusted  with  all '  (are  airos  Travras  iyx^i-pi-a-Ous, 


TJie  Coimcil  of  Jcrtisnlcin 


21 


the  very  word  for  '  invested '  in  the  disputed  passage),  '  for 
'  to  him  Christ  said,  "When  thou  art  converted,  strengthen 
'thy  brethren.'" 

But  equally  important  is  another  passage  in  a  separate 
work,  where  S.  Chrysostom  is  pointing  out  S.  Peter't 
superiority,  in  some  sense,  even  to  S.  Paul.  There,  having 
said  that  S.  Peter  was  the  real  author  of  the  whole  scene 
at  Antioch,  he  says  in  reference  to  the  Day  of  Pentecost, 
oi  yap  hr\  tovtov  fj-ovov  ccXXa  kol  fteTO.  ravra  v(f)  kripojv 
ytvofxevoiy  opOiofLOLTUiv  ovtos  uv  eLij  Travrcov  atrios,  6  rrjv 
dpxl]v  Koi  TYjv  et(ToBov  Trapda^div.  Notice  the  word  dpxV) 
which  has  the  meaning  of  '  beginning '  as  proper  to  the 
leader  ;  therefore  in  all  matters  after  the  day  of  Pentecost 
we  are  to  look  on  Peter  as  the  responsible  '  cause  of  all,' 
and  as  the  one  who  takes  the  lead  and  the  initiation 
on  every  occasion.  This  is  S.  Chrysostom's  favourite 
thought  about  S.  Peter.  We  are  now  in  possession,  surely, 
of  sufficient  material  for  a  decision. 

What  does  S.  Peter  do  at  the  Council  ?  What  does  he 
do,  who  is  akvays  to  be  thought  of,  says  S.  Chrysostom, 
as  the  one  entrusted  with  the  flock,  and  as  invested  with 
the  power  of  initiation  ? 

I  must  repeat  that  it  is  idle  of  my  critic  to  say  that 
the  '  following  extracts  from  the  Homily  will  show  S. 
Chrysostom's  statement  '  of  the  whole  matter.'  We  cannot 
justly  gather  S.  Chrysostom's  opinion  as  to  the  part 
borne  by  S.  Peter  and  S.  James  respectively  if  we  begin 
by  eliminating  the  description  of  the  part  borne  by  S. 
Peter  ;  which  is  what  my  opponent  actually  does.  It  is 
enough  to  state  the  idea  to  refute  it.  Now  in  the  previous 
Homily,  S.  Chrysostom  draws  particular  attention  to  one 
fact,  viz.  that  S.Peter  'first  allows  the  investigation'  {irpOtrov 
crvYy(tip€i  t,r]T-r](Tw  yevecrOai).  That  is  precisely  what  we 
should  expect.  He  who  was  entrusted  with  the  flock 
always  makes  the  beginning,  is  S.  Chrysostom's  dictum. 


2 


Tlie  Council  of  Jerusalem 


Who  does  not  see  that  he  accordingly  at  once  places 
him  in  a  unique  position,  and  that,  too,  of  authoritative 
initiation  ?    '  He  first  permits  the  inquiry  to  be  made.' 

Then  again,  S.  Chrysostom  says  that  '  what  was  need- 
'  ful  to  be  enacted  as  law,  this  Peter  introduced  '  There 
is  exactly  the  same  idea,  that  of  authoritative  initiation. 
S.  Peter  was  the  one  entrusted  with  the  Jews— this  is  S. 
Chrysostom's  constant  theme  :  and  S.  Peter  was  the  one 
to  initiate :  this  is  S.  Chrysostom's  perpetual,  emphatic, 
description  of  him.  S.  James  had  a  special  relation  to 
the  Jews  in  Jerusalem.  He  was,  therefore,  specially  an 
authority  with  them.  Accordingly  he  had  to  announce 
to  them  the  disciplinary  enactment,  whilst  S.  Peter  an- 
nounced the  dogmatic  principle.  Both  acted  in  concert 
with  the  whole  Apostolic  College. 

In  order  to  recommend  their  principle  with  its  prac- 
tical application,  S.  James  used  the  same  mildness  that 
Peter  did  on  other  occasions.  S.  Chrysostom  speaks  of 
S.  Peter's  mildness  much  oftener  than  he  does  of  S.  James's : 
though  on  this  particular  occasion  S.  James  had  the 
more  delicate  task  of  bringing  his  influence  to  bear  on 
the  Judaizing  converts,  who  had  refused  to  listen  to  S. 
Paul,  and  constantly  accused  him  of  being  out  of  harmony 
(see  Gal.  ii.)  with  the  other  Apostles,  especially  S.  Peter 
and  S.  James.  Hence  the  way  in  which  S.  James  em- 
phasizes his  own  convictions,  speaking  of  the  disciplinary 
enactment  as  his  own  conviction,  his  own  judgment, 
though,  of  course,  in  concert  with  'Peter  and  the  rest,' 
as  S.  Chrysostom  says  in  the  beginning  of  his  Homily. 

We  can  now  see  the  true  translation  of  the  disputed 
passage. 

The  real  subject  is  the  effect  of  S.  Peter's  speech  on  the 
multitude.  Before  that  speech  they  would  not  listen  to 
S.  Paul.  After  that  speech  all  are  silent  :  multitude,  and 
Apostles,  and  all.  S.  Chrysostom's  words  are,  '  After  Peter 


The  Couna'l  of  Jerusalem 


23 


'  Paul  spake,  and  no  one  silences  him.  James  waits 
'  patiently  and  does  not  start  up.  For  he '  {i.e.  that  one 
whom  I  mentioned  before,  Peter,  tKilvo';)  'had  been  en- 
'  trusted  with  the  lead  '  :  hence  the  silence  of  all. 

If  apx*/  means  simply  rule,  as,  of  course,  it  may,  then 
it  would  most  naturally  still  apply  to  Peter.  But  perhaps 
the  best  English  equivalent  for  the  word  apxvi  in  this 
passage,  is  really  'the  lead,'  for  it  seems  most  probable, 
from  the  description  given  of  S.  Peter  by  S.  Chrysostom 
above,  as  the  one  entrusted  with  the  Primacy,  and  there- 
fore specially  (as  included  m  that)  with  the  initiative  on 
such  occasions  as  the  present,  that  it  has  special  reference 
to  that  usual  idea  of  his  in  connection  with  S.  Peter,  viz. 
'  beginning.'  '  Nothing  speaks  John,  nothing  the  other 
'  Apostles,  but  they  are  silent  and  think  it  no  hardship. 
'  So  clear  was  their  soul  from  the  love  of  glory.'  This 
gives  a  real  meaning  to  the  whole  passage  in  accordance 
with  all  S.  Chrysostom's  teaching.  S.  Peter,  in  his  opening 
speech,  speaking  with  authority,  on  the  question  of  prin- 
ciple, had  silenced  the  multitude.  He  had  commenced 
with  ruling  that  the  Law  was  not  to  be  kept  as  a  matter 
of  necessity. 

S.  James  was  silent  here,  just  as,  S.  Chrysostom  notices, 
he  was  on  a  previous  occasion,  and  for  the  same  reason, 
viz.  the  leadership  and  direction  belonged  to  S.  Peter. 
Presently  he  rises  and  deals  with  a  disciplinary  enactment. 
He  expresses  his  judgment,  and  uses  an  expression  which 
is  exactly  what  ecclesiastics  in  Council  would  use.  It  in 
no  way  implies  presidency.  Thus  yap  is  fully  explained, 
and  a  frequent  usage  of  iK€ivo<;  is  assumed.  And  now, 
from  want  of  careful  study  of  the  Homily — and  I  am 
entitled,  from  what  I  am  going  to  show  soon,  to  say  this 
— my  critic  has  missed  the  idea  of  the  following  paragraph. 

S.  Chrysostom  now,  as  so  often,  recapitulates  and 
reverts  to  the  beginning  of  his  Homily.    He  reminds 


24 


The  Council  of  Jerusalem 


them  of  what  he  has  commented  on  S.  James's  speech 
above. 

He  says  :  '  But  let  us  see  from  the  beginning  what 
'  has  been  said.' '  He  had  pre\-iously  commented  in  full  on 
S.  James's  speech,  so  he  merely  refers  to  it  now,  and  gives 
it  as  an  instance  of  the  mildness  which  he  has  so  often  be- 
fore, and  even  on  this  occasion  in  the  previous  Homily, 
praised  in  S.  Peter  and  S.  Paul.  He  then  says,  '  In  com- 
'  mencing,  Peter  spoke  more  strongly,  it  is  true,'  i.e.  than  he 
did  afterwards.  The  translation  given  by  the  '  friend '  is 
not  exact  S.  Clm  sostom  does  not  say,  IE  apx^s  6  IT cVpo?, 
K.r.X.,  but  o.pxn^  cr4>oBp6Tepov  fxev,  which  makes  a  differ- 
ence. He  then  speaks  of  S.  James  speaking  more  mildly 
than  S.  Peter  did  when  he  began  his  speech,  S.  James 
being  '  in  high  authority.'  Authority  over  whom  ?  Not 
over  Apostles.  This  would  be  too  strong  an  expression 
even  for  the  Anglican  theory.  It  is  inconceivable  that 
my  critic,  considering  his  words  on  p.  i6,  about  S.  Peter 
being  'primus  inter  pares,'  by  a  Divine  appointment, 
can  suppose  that  S.  James  had  authority  over  Apostles. 
S.  James's  authority  was  over  the  converts  at  Jerusalem. 

The  fact  is  (and  it  is  from  not  seeing  this  that  my 
critic's  difEculties  proceed)  that  the  antithesis  is  between 
James  and  the  Judaizers,  not  James  and  Peter.  It  is 
the  Judaizers,  not  Peter,  to  whom  S.  James  leaves  to. 
<f>of)Tixd,  by  which  term  S.  Chr)  sostom  characterises  the 
animosity  they  displayed,  not  permitting  Paul  to  speak 
until  Peter  had  somewhat  subdued  them.  This  sort  of 
thing  he  does  not  yield  to,  but  leaves  it  to  others,  if  they 
will.  It  "is  c-epois  (not  oAAois),  which  could  hardly  apply 
to  Peter,  and  the  sentiment  would  be  too  unchristian, 
viz.  that  it  is  the  part  of  one  in  high  authority  to  leave 

'  I:  is  not,  as  my  critic  translates,  '  what  was  said  before  ; '  not 
TO  &yb  d€v  iip7iu€ya  but  ayccBey  to  ilp-qfin  a.  There  is  a  slight  differ- 
ence between  the  two. 


77/t'  Council  of  Jcnisalcni 


25 


tlie  more  trying  part  for  others.  The  clause  upxv^ 
concessive,  not  antithetic.  His  contention  is  that  the 
Apostles,  unlike  the  Judaizers,  were  composed  and  con- 
ciliatory, as  rulers  should  be.  He  feels  obliged,  however, 
to  concede  that  S.  Peter  on  the  present  occasion  was  a 
little  heated,  but  excuses  him  on  the  plea  that  it  was 
just  'at  the  commencement,'  while  he  was  indignant  at 
the  bad  spirit  of  the  Judaizers,  implying  that  he  toned 
down  as  he  went  on. 

That  this  is  his  meaning  seems  clear  from  the  fact, 
(i)  that  S.  Peter  is  commended  for  that  same  mildness 
in  the  previous  Homily,  and  also  frequently  in  all  the 
homilies  on  the  Acts  ;  (2)  that  the  word  m  (poprcKa  is 
too  harsh  to  describe  S.  Peter  s  speech,  especially  in  view 
of  S.  Chrysostom's  estimate  of  it,  already  given  ;  (3)  that 
eV  fji.€ydkr)  SwaareLo.  is  a  phrase  quite  unintelligible  as  a 
description  of  S.  James  in  relation  to  the  Apostles,  even 
if  the  Anglican  theory  were  correct.  It  is  too  big  a  word 
for  a  mere  president.  S.  James  was  Bishop  of  Jerusalem, 
and  as  such  in  high  authority  over  those  who  lived  in 
Jerusalem.  He  was  their  regular  teacher,  and  identified 
with  them  in  a  way  that  the  rest  of  the  Apostles  were 
not.  My  critic,  on  p.  6,  by  omitting  a  portion  of  S. 
Chrysostom's  words,  gives  a  slight  turn  to  the  first  words 
he  quotes.  He  makes  S.  Chrysostom  say,  'This  (James) 
'  was  bishop,  as  they  say,  and  therefore  he  speaks  last.' 
He  omits  the  words  '  of  the  Church  of  Jerusalem,'  with 
the  result  of  implying  that  because  he  was  bishop,  he 
was  president.  The  8to  Koi,  we  now  see,  must  mean,  'He 
'spoke  last  as  the  representative  of  the  Judaizers.^  It  was 
his  connection  with  them  that  determines  his  position. 
S.  Peter  had  laid  down  the  principle,  S.  Paul  had  testified 
to  the  outpouring  of  the  Spirit  on  the  Gentiles  :  it  re- 
mained for  the  representative  of  the  Judaizers  to  approach 
the  subject  from  their  side. 


26 


TJie  Council  of  Jcmsalcm 


Again  there  is  an  inexactness  in  the  translation 
directly  after  this.  The  Anglican  translation  runs  (see 
p.  6)  :  '  And  indeed  it  is  wisely  ordered  that  this  (the 
'  active)  part  is  assigned  to  those,'  &c.  The  word  '  active  ' 
is,  of  course,  an  interpolation,  and  the  interpolation  is 
misleading.  S.  Chrysostom  means  to  say,  '  It  was  wisely 
'  arranged  that  those  things  which  involved  the  new  de- 
'  parture  in  regard  to  legal  observance — viz.  the  action  of 
'  Peter  at  Samaria  (Acts  x.  20)  and  of  Paul  at  Antioch 
'  {ibid.  XV.  2)  and  elsewhere — should  have  fallen  to  the 
'  lot  of  Apostles  who  were  not  to  be  resident  in  Jerusalem, 
'  so  that  James  who  was  teaching  them  (rov  SiSda-Kovra 
'  avTov?)  could  be  without  responsibility  for  what  the 
'  other  two  had  done,  although  he  was  at  one  with  them 
'  in  mind.'  For  thus  S.  James  was  better  fitted  to  bring 
the  Judaizers  round.  He  was  a  persona  gratior  to  them. 
He  was  Bishop  of  Jerusalem.  Hence,  after  S.  Peter 
has  hushed  the  voice  of  controversy,  so  that  S.  Paul 
could  be  listened  to,  S.  James  performs  the  delicate  task 
of  announcing  the  less  permanent,  but  more  immediately 
practical  part.  What  he  said  did  not  bind  the  Universal 
Church  even  at  that  time,  and  did  not  permanently  bind 
even  that  portion  to  which  it  applied.  It  was  the  less 
important  part.' 

All  this  is  in  exact  accord  with  S.  Jerome's  account. 
S.  Jerome  tells  us  that  '  S.  James  and  the  elders  gave 
'  consent  to  S.  Peter's  opinion.'  My  critic  objects  to  my 
translating  '  sententia '  in  S.  Jerome  by  '  sentence,'  as 
though  it  made  the  '  decree '  S.  Peter's  ;  but,  referring  to 
the  dogmatic  part  of  the  Apostles'  decision,  S.  Jerome 

'  The  expression  'and  then  again  his  authority  (as  bishop),' 
quoted  p.  7  and  alluded  to  p.  8,  is  not  in  the  original.  The  words 
(as  bishop)  are  the  Anglican  translator's,  and  the  word  for  '  autho- 
rity '  possibly  means  judgment,  or  proposition,  though  it  may  mean 
'  the  consideration  in  which  he  was  held.' 


TJic  Council  of  Jerusalem 


27 


goes  on  to  call  S.  Peter  'princeps  hujus  decreti,'  prin- 
cipal author,  or  initiator,  of  this  '  decree.'  Also  Theo- 
doret  says,  '  Paul,  who  was  the  herald  of  truth,  the  organ 
'  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  had  recourse  to  the  great  Peter,  in 
'  order  to  obtain  from  him  a  decision  concerning  the 
'  observances  of  the  Law,  for  those  who  disputed  at 
'  Antioch  on  this  subject.' 

Dr.  Dollinger  has  accurately  expressed  the  matter  in 
his  '  First  Age  of  the  Church '  : — 

'  The  sentence  of  S.  James  could  not  but  have  great 
'  weight  at  that  Synod,  for  S.  Peter,  like  S.  Paul,  was  in  a 
'  manner  a  party  concerned  in  the  question.  S.  James, 
'  who  with  his  comrtiunity  was  so  faithful  to  the  Law,  was 
'  the  best  and  most  convincing  judge  in  this  strife  .  .  . 
'  in  that  matter;  and  for  persons  who  appealed  unhesi- 
'  tatingly  to  the  example  of  the  Mother  Church '  (notice 
this  important  explanation)  'the  example  of  James  had 
'  more  weight  than  that  of  Peter,  just  as  afterwards  the 
'  Ebionites  laboured  to  make  his  authority  appear  the 
'  highest  in  the  Church.'  It  was  a  weakness  on  their  part 
that  they  looked  so  much  more  to  S.  James,  but  so  it 
was.  But  of  S.  Peter,  Dr.  Dollinger  remarks  :  '  He  was 
'  at  the  head,  as  always  and  everywhere  else,  in  the 
'  assembly  of  Jerusalem,  which  freed  the  Gentiles  from 
'  observing  the  ceremonial  law  :  he  opened  it,  and  his 
'  motion  was  carried,  with  the  conditions  added  by 
'  S.  James.' 

3.  And  now  for  the  note.  My  critic  quotes  the  note 
of  a  friend  and  adopts  it  on  p.  8.  And  he  speaks  of  p.  g. 
S.  Peter's  '  less  authoritative  position,'  a  phrase  which 
we  have  seen  would  have  been  altogether  repudiated 
by  S.  Chrysostom.  And  he  speaks  of  S.  Chrysostom 
adding  of  S.  Peter,  that  he  speaks  not  '  his  own  mind,' 
but  '  the  mind  of  others,'  and  '  shows  that  this  is  a  doc- 
'  trine  of  old  time.' 


28 


T]ie  Council  of  Jerusalem 


And  for  this  extraordinary  statement  he  relies  on  his 
friend's  note. 

His  friend  writes,  'Whatever  we  may  think  of 
'  S.  Chrysostom's  comment  on  the  use  of  efr^y/craTO,  it  is 
'  noteworthy  that  he  should  call  attention  to  his  opinion, 
'  that  the  "  Head  of  the  Church,"  instead  of  deciding  the 
question  on  his  own  authority,  expressed  hepoiv  yviL/xrjv.' 

I  must  call  this  '  gross  carelessness,'  for  really  it  is 
nothing  short  of  that. 

Why,  S.  Chrysostom  is  speaking  of  Symeon,  the 
author  of  Nunc  Dimittis  ! 

The  friend  must  have  discovered  this  if  he  had  read 
the  Homily  through.  It  is  strange  that  S.  Chrysostom 
should  so  understand  it.  But  so  it  is.'  It  needs  care 
to  interpret  S.  Chrysostom.  But  very  little  care  indeed 
would  have  detected  the  fact  that  S.  Chrysostom,  in 
analysing  S.  James's  speech,  holds  that  he  endeavoured 
to  conciliate  his  Jewish  converts  by  appealing  first  to 
Symeon  in  the  Gospel  of  S.  Luke  and  then  to  the  older 
prophets.    It  never  occurs  to  him  that  it  is  Simon  Peter. 

Thus  my  critic  makes  two  mistakes. 

1.  He  imagines  that  S.  Chrysostom  is  speaking  of 
the  '  Head  of  the  Church,'  instead  of  the  author  of  the 
Nunc  Dimittis  :  and 

2.  He  imagines  that  kripwv  yv(!>fir)  'the  mind  of  others,' 
means  the  Apostles',  instead  of  its  referring  to  Symeon, 
in  his  canticle,  expressing  the  mind  of  the  old  prophets.'^ 

'  Perhaps  S.  Chrj'sostom  wuuld  have  said  that  in  Holy  Scrip- 
ture the  Apostle  is  invariably  (with  one  doubtful  exception)  called 
2>a)v,  not  Su/ieoic.  The  doubtful  exception  is  2  Pet.  i.  I.  The 
textus  receptus  has  '2.vp.iu>v,  and  so,  in  consequence,  had  Chrysostom, 
in  all  probability,  but  S>  B  read  Xtfituv. 

-  !.t'.  the  expression  '  light  to  lighten  the  Gentiles  '  being  bor- 
rowed from  the  Old  Testament.  Cf.  supra:  'ETreiSi;  e/ceikoj  {^'2,vix€wv) 
oirf)  uiv  xpovov  .  .  .  i-irdyei  Kol  Tra^aiav  TrpocpriTeiav. 


TJie  Council  of  Jerusalem 


29 


I  think  I  need  say  no  more  about  this  pubhc  attack 
on  my  accuracy.  Surely  this  is  sufficient  to  settle  the 
question  of  trustworthiness. 

Summary  of  the  Argument. 

Taking,  then,  the  '  Reason  for  Distrusting  Mr.  Riving- 
ton's  Appeal  to  the  Fathers,'  by  the  author  of  the 
'  Roman  Question,'  page  by  page,  I  note  the  following 
errors  : — • 

1.  On  p.  I  he  says:  'His  (Mr.  Rivington's)  words 
'  in  reference  to  it '  {i.e.  the  above  passage  in  S.  Chryso- 
'  stom)  '  at  least  enable  us  to  trace  the  working  of  his  mind 
'  at  a  great  crisis.'  But  the  writer  does  not  give  more 
than  one- seventh  of  my  words  on  the  subject  he  selects, 
and  those  the  least  important  part,  as  it  only  concerns 
what  suggested  further  inquiry,  not  what  contains  the 
grounds  of  my  ultimate  convictions.  This  I  have  ex- 
pressly stated  both  in  my  book  (p.  58)  and  in  corre- 
spondence with  its  writer. 

2.  On  p.  5  we  read,  'The  Homily  alluded  to  ...  . 
'  gives  S.  Chrysostom's  explanation  of  what  took  place 
'  at  the  Council  of  Jerusalem.'  This  is  incorrect.  The 
previous  Homily  gives  all  about  S.  Peter,  which  its 
writer  omits,  and  without  which  it  is  impossible  to  under- 
stand the  parts  played  by  S.  Peter  and  S.  James  respec- 
tively. 

3.  On  p.  6  :  '  The  following  extracts  from  the  Homily 
'  will  show  S.  Chrysostom's  statement  of  the  whole  matter.' 
So  far  is  this  from  being  the  case  that  the  extracts  omit 
an  important  sentence  in  which  S.  Chrysostom  contrasts 
the  functions  of  S.  Peter  and  S.  James,  saying  that  '  what 
'  was  to  be  enacted  as  law,  this  Peter  introduced,'  which 
considerably  affects  his  teaching  as  to  S.  Peter's  office  in 
the  Council. 


30 


The  Council  of  Jcnisalcin 


4.  On  p.  6  the  words  '  Who  performs  the  part  of  a 
ToTs"!™""     'teacher'  is  not  a  fair  translation.    S.  Chrysostom  is 

speaking  of  S.  James  as  '  him  who  teaches  them ' — i.e. 
the  people  of  Jerusalem — as  their  ordinary  teacher.  The 
translation  would  allow  of  its  meaning  that  he  was 
teaching  the  Council  ;  and  he  omits  S.  Chrysostom's 
words  'of  the  Church  of  Jerusalem,'  which  omission 
gives  a  different  turn  to  the  meaning.  •  Cf  ijifra,  and 
he  interpolates  '  active '  with  the  same  result. 

5.  On  p.  7  :  'The  matter  under  discussion'  is  a 
translation  which  conveys  a  false  impression.  It  is  tois 
Trpa-y/xatri  plural—  the  proceedings,  the  practical  part. 

6.  To  say,  as  on  p.  8,  that  '  this  account  is  clearly-  in 
'accordance  with  Holy  Scripture,'  is  an  assumption  ;  and, 
as  we  have  seen,  is  not  borne  out  by  S.  Chrysostom's  com- 
ments. 

7.  On  p.  9  it  is  said  of  S.  Chrysostom  that,  '  He  adds 
'  of  S.  Peter,  that  he  speaks  not  his  own  mind,  but  the 
'  mind  of  others.'  S.  Chrysostom  is  speaking  of  Symeon, 
not  of  Simon  Peter. 

8.  On  p.  9  the  writer  says,  'Viewing  thus  the  whole 
'  context,'  but  he  has  omitted  one-half  of  S.  Chrysostom's 
account  of  the  Council,  contained  in  the  previous  Homily. 

9.  On  p.  10  the  writer  says,  'But  Mr.  Rivington  rests 
'  his  case  on  a  single  sentence,  not  regarding  the  context.' 
I  know  not  how  to  characterise  this  assertion.  I  have 
taken  all  the  Homilies  on  the  Acts  as  the  context.  See 
my  book  'Authority,'  pp.  61-75.  ^'^d  why  does  he 
again  omit  the  first  word  of  my  sentence,  which  shows 
that  I  am  passing  off  to  the  proof,  to  which,  /;/  the  next 
sentence  I  earnestly  ask  my  readers  to  pay  attention  ? 

10.  Again  on  p.  10  the  writer  says,  'But  still  this  sen- 
'  tence  is  so  important  and  Mr.  Rivington  evidently  views 
'  it  as  a  test  of  the  whole  question,  so  that  it  oyght  to  be 
'  considered  alone  and  separate  from  all  other  parts  of  the 


Tlie  Council  of  Jencsalan 


31 


'  Homily.'  I  know  not  what  to  say  to  such  an  assertion, 
except,  again,  that  it  is  utterly  devoid  of  foundation.  I 
have  laid  no  stress  whatever  on  this  sentence  by  itself, 
though  I  lay  some  stress  on  its  mistranslation.  As  an 
Anglican  controversialist  I  laid  great  stress  on  the 
sentence  ;  but  in  my  book  I  have  devoted  fourteen  pages 
to  my  proof  as  to  S.  Chrysostom's  teaching  on  the 
primacy  of  S.  Peter,  and  this  sentence  actually  does  not 
occur  at  all  in  that  proof ! 

11.  On  page  10  the  writer  here  admits  that  'certain 
'verbal  transpositions'  were  made.  But  the  'verbal  trans- 
' positions'  constitute  a  'sentence,'  which  was  my  con- 
tention. He  admits  also  that  the  word  '  James  '  does 
not  occur  in  the  original,  which  again  was  my  conten- 
tion. 

12.  '  Simeon  hath  declared,'  on  page  11,  ought  to  be 
(according  to  S.  Chrysostom)  '  Symeon  interpreted  ' — 
referring  to  the  aged  Symeon,  and  (probably)  to  his 
exegesis  of  the  prophet  Isaiah  in  his  canticle  Nunc 
Dimittis. 

13.  The  writer  says,  p.  12  :  'It  will  be  seen  hovv  the 
'  "  he  "  follows  immediately  after  the  mention  of  S.  James, 
'and  can  refer  to  no  other.'  I  venture  to  say  that  no 
Greek  Lexicon  in  the  world  would  assert  that  eVetvos 
must  refer  to  the  last-named  person.  And  the  reference 
to  James  makes  the  sentence  meaningless. 

14.  There  is  a  note  to  page  12  quoting  S.  Chry- 
sostom's commentary  on  S.  John  xxi.  19,  reminding  us 
that  there  he  'again  speaks  of  James  receiving  the 
'  chair  of  Jerusalem.'  So  he  does.  But  in  that  passage 
S.  Chrysostom  speaks  of  S.  James  having  received  the 
chair  at  Jerusalem,  as  something  less  than  S.  Peter's 
charge.  I  do  not  think  unfair  quotation  could  well  go 
beyond  this  ;  for  the  question  to  which  the  writer  has 
' '  narrowed  down '  the  consideration  is  the  relationship 


32 


The  Coiinctl  of  Jerusalem 


between  S.  Peter  and  S.  James  (see  page  6).  And  here 
is  the  whole  quotation,  to  which  he  says  the  reader  may 
be  referred  : — • 

'  He  asks  him  {i.e.  Peter)  the  third  time,  and  the 
third  time  gives  him  the  same  injunction,  showing  at 
what  a  price  He  sets  the  presidency  over  His  own  sheep. 
And  if  anyone  should  say.  How  then  did  James  receive 
the  throne  of  Jerusalem?  this  I  would  answer,  that 
He  appointed  this  man  {i.e.  Peter)  teacher,  not  of  that 
throne,  but  of  the  world.'  It  is  of  these  very  words  of 
our  Lord  that  S.  Chrysostom  says  elsewhere,  that  S.  Peter 
by  them  was  declared  '  to  have  power  and  to  go  beyond 
'  the  rest  of  the  Apostles.' — De  Sacerd.  Lib.  ii. 

15.  p.  13.  It  would  have  helped  readers  if  it  had  been 
explained  that  at  liAA.'  tSco/Aci/  a  fresh  recapitulation  be- 
gins, after  S.  Chrysostom's  usual  fashion,  and  that  it  is 
not  a  continuation  of  the  same  paragraph.  I  can  see  no 
good  reason  for  printing  exactly  that  amount  of  the 
Homily  only,  unless  it  was  to  bring  in  Symeon,  whom  the 
critic  mistook  for  Simon  Peter. 

16.  p.  14.  S.  Chrysostom  is  not  talking  of  the  'Head 
'  of  the  Church'  at  all,  but  of  the  author  of  Nunc  Dimittis. 

17.  kripiMv  yvilifiyjv  'the  mind  of  Others,'  refers  to 
Symeon  expressing  the  mind  of  the  Prophets  in  his 
canticle  Nunc  Dimittis. 

18.  The  writer  gives  my  quotation  from  S.  Jerome  : 
'  S.  James  the  Apostle  and  all  the  ancients  adopted  his 
'  sentence,'  i.e.  S.  Peter's  ;  and  says,  '  But  this  is  not  really 
'  relevant  to  the  question  immediately  at  issue.'  But  it  is 
important  as  showing  S.  Jerome's  view  of  S.  James's 
relation  to  S.  Peter  at  the  Council.  He  says,  S. 
Jerome,  in  the  letter  referred  to,  '  is  not  speaking  of 
'  his  position  at  the  Council  in  comparison  of  S.  James.' 
But  he  calls  S.  Peter  '  princeps  hujus  decreti,'  and  the 
decree  is  the  very  one  passed  at  the  Council ;  he  says 


TJie  Council  of  Jerusalem 


33 


this  in  the  very  sentence  which  the  writer  proceeds  to 
question,  only  the  writer  omits  those  words  ! 

19.  The  writer  compares  S.  Peter's  relation  to  the 
rest  of  the  Council  to  that  of  S.  Athanasius  to  the  Council 
at  Nice.  Such  a  comparison  reveals  a  complete  mis- 
understanding of  the  relation  of  the  Apostles  to  each 
other  in  virtue  of  their  personal  infallibility.  The  Council 
at  Jerusalem  cannot  be  compared  to  any  subsequent 
Council  without  mutatis  mutandis. 

20.  On  p.  16  the  writer  applies  S.  Paul's  words 
(2  Cor.  xi.  5),  '  not  a  whit  behind  the  very  chiefest 
Apostles '  to  Peter,  James,  and  John  !  But  S.  Paul  uses 
a  word  which  he  would  never  apply  to  his  fellow-Apostles. 
He  is  speaking  of  pseudo-apostles.  He  says  in  verse  13, 
'  Such  are  false  Apostles.' 

21.  The  writer  announces  a  belief  in  S.  Peter's 
primacy  'by  a  divine  appointment,'  but  holds  ihit  it 
died  with  S.  Peter. 

This  is  Tertullian's  creed  after  he  became  a  heretic. 
It  did  not,  however,  in  my  critic's  opinion  involve  even 
S.  Peter's  presidency  or  superiority  at  a  Council  !  He 
was,  says  this  writer,  in  a  position  of  inferiority  there  ! 
What  did  the  primacy  involve  ?  He  would  find  it  hard 
to  say,  I  imagine.  And  so  did  I  as  an  Anglican.  I 
therefore  for  a  long  while  held,  as  a  more  logical  view, 
that  S.  Peter  excelled  the  others  in  natural  qualities  only, 
although  my  critic  says  that  I  never  could,  as  a  High  p.  ,6. 
Churchman,  have  held  such  a  view.  There  is  no  saying 
what  a  High  Churchnvin  can  hold.  It  is  a  theory  held 
to  this  day  by  Dr.  Littledale  in  his  '  Plain  Reasons,'  &c., 
and  it  seems  as  though  on  the  whole  it  is  held  by  Mr. 
Gore,  though  I  should  not  like  to  commit  myself  to  any 
definite  assertion  on  that  subject. 

Is  it  not  strange  that  teachers  in  a  religious  body 
should  be  so  vague  on  such  an  all-important  question  ? 

D 


34 


TJic  Council  of  Jenisalcin 


It  would  be  hard  to  discover  what  position  the  author 
of  the  '  Roman  Question '  would  assign  to  S.  Peter's 
successor.  Bishop  Watson  tells  us  that  the  doctrine  that 
the  Pope  is  Antichrist  is  '  the  pillar  of  the  Reformation.' 
There  can,  I  think,  be  no  doubt  that,  but  for  that 
doctrine,  England  would  never  have  been  kept  so  long 
torn  from  her  true  mother. 

When  I  saw  that  S.  Peter  had  a  primacy  given  to 
him  by  our  Lord,  it  was  not  long  before  I  saw  that  this 
meant  that  the  visible  Church  was  to  have  a  visible  head 
— a  head,  that  is,  in  the  same  order  of  life,  i.e.  the  visible. 
For  a  visible  body  without  a  visible  head  is  not  a  visible 
body,  the  head  being  part  of  the  body,  and  the  most 
important  part.  Without  it  you  have  only  a  visible  trunk. 
A  head,  that  only  lasted  during  the  Apostles'  times,  seems 
of  all  doctrines  the  most  strange.  Certainly  I  never  held 
that. 


'  Peter  hath  Spoken  by  Leo  ' 


35 


CHAPTER  II. 

'  PETER  HATH  SPOKEN  BY  LEO.' 

T/ie  Fathers  of  Chalcedon. 

The  author  of  the  pamphlet  with  which  I  dealt  in  the 
last  chapter,  describes  himself  as  one  of  those  who  be- 
longed to  the  original  Tractarian  movement,  but  who, 
instead  of  following  in  the  steps  of  Newman  and  Manning, 
Allies  and  Coleridge,  Christie  and  Oakeley  and  Faber,  and 
Ward  and  Caswall,  and  a  host  of  others,  remained  in  the 
Establishment  and  '  has  lived  and  worked  on  since  they 
'  left  us,  upon  the  same  lines  which  they  taught  us,  still 
'  treasuring  the  tone  and  spirit  in  which  they  wrote  as 
'  English  divines.'    ('  Roman  Question,'  p.  54.) 

He  has  now  given  us  his  ripest  thoughts  on  the  Roman 
question — on,  at  least,  'some  salient  points  '  and  'leading 
'  details  '  (Preface).  '  He  has  earnestly  desired  to  be  fair, 
'  to  exaggerate  nothing,  and  to  avoid  any  hard  expressions  ' 
(ibid.) 

It  must,  therefore,  be  a  matter  of  the  deepest  interest 
to  see  what  are  the  grounds  in  history  and  the  Fathers, 
on  which  such  a  writer  (who  calls  himself  'an  aged 
'  priest,'  and  is  known  to  be  one  of  the  most  influential 
clergymen  of  the  Church  of  England  at  the  present 
moment)  bases  his  view  of  these  '  .salient  points  '  in  the 
question  between  Rome  and  England. 

We  naturally  look  to  his  view  of  the  Council  of  Chal- 
cedon, and  of  Leo  the  Great. 


36 


'  Peter  hath  spoken  by  Leo  ' 


Fresh  interest  has  been  lately  lent  to  this  subject  from 
the  Bishop  of  Lincoln's  counsel  (Sir  AValter  Phillimore) 
having  claimed  the  canons  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon 
as  part  of  the  canon  law  of  the  Church  of  England. 

The  following  sentence  contains  the  above-mentioned 
writer's  view  of  the  matter  :  '  The  important  fact  remains, 
'  as  already  shown  in  a  former  letter,  that  the  Fathers  of 
'  that  Council  (six  hundred  and  thirty  bishops)  did  not 
'  feel  that  any  superiority  of  government  belonged  to  the 
'  Roman  See  on  that  account '  {i.e.  on  the  ground  that 
S.  Leo  '  sat  in  Peter's  chair ')  '  for  they  distinctly  refused 
'  to  accede  to  Leo's  demands,  and,  against  the  Roman 
'  legates,  decided  on  giving  the  patriarchal  dignity  to  Con- 
'  stantinople,  which  was  the  point  to  which  the  Pope's  con- 
'  tention  referred.'    ('  Roman  Question,'  p.  32.) 

And,  in  the  chapter  referred  to,  the  writer  had  said, 
'  it  has  been  urged  against  the  decree,  that  the  then  Pope, 
'  Leo,  protested  against  it,  and  so  saved  his  prerogative, 
'  notwithstanding  that  the  Council,  after  hearing  this  pro- 
'  test,  persisted  in  carrying  the  decree  as  originally  framed. 
'  But  the  answer  to  this  objection  is  clear.  The  protest  on 
'  the  part  of  Rome  rested  not  on  any  exclusive  privilege 
'  claimed  by  it,  but  on  the  decree  being,  as  the  Pope  af- 
'  firmed,  an  unjust  usurpation  of  the  privileges  of  other 
'  bishops,  and  particularly  of  those  of  the  Bishops  of  Alex- 
'  andria  and  Antioch,  who  were  next  in  rank  to  the  Bishop 
'  of  Rome,  and  thus  contrary  to  the  Nicene  Canons.  Rome 
'  did  not  oppose  the  decree  as  derogatory  to  herself  .  .  . 
And  Rome,  at  the  period  spoken  of,  claimed  nothing  more 
'  than  was  consistent  with  the  Church's  canon  law '  (p.  11). 

I  shall  give  a  short  summary  of  the  Fourth  General 
Council  and  the  Pope's  relation  to  it.  The  four  first 
councils  stand,  in  the  eyes  of  all  English  Churchmen, 
quite  by  themselves.  They  are  to  them  a  Court  of  Ap- 
psal,  beyond  which  there  is,  in  theory,  nothing  save  Holy 


'  Peter  hath  Spoken  by  Leo' 


37 


Scripture  itself.  And  indeed,  seeing  that  they  rightly 
hold  that  the  sense  of  Scripture  is  Scripture,  the  first  four 
Councils,  determining,  as  they  are  held  to  do,  the  sense  of 
Scripture  on  certain  points,  have  a  claim  on  their  atten- 
tion which  nothing  else  has.  And  the  fourth  Council 
has  its  own  peculiar  claims.  For  it  closed  the  great  ques- 
tions concerning  the  two  Natures  and  the  Divine  Person 
of  our  Blessed  Lord  ;  and  every  Anglican  holds  that  there 
is  no  uninspired  writing  quite  on  a  par  with  the  '  Tome 
'  of  S.  Leo,'  which  declares  the  final  doctrine  of  the  Chureh 
on  the  mystery  of  the  Holy  Incarnation.  It  was  of  this 
that  the  Fathers  of  Chalcedon  exclaimed,  '  Peter  hath 
*  spoken  by  Leo.' 

What,  then,  was  the  history  of  that  Tome? 

The  Council  of  Ephesus,  in  accordance  w'ith  the 
judgment  of  Pope  Celestine,'  presided  over  by  his  Legate 
S.  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  had  condemned  Nestorius.  But  an 
error,  in  some  respects  still  more  difficult  to  deal  with,  and 
equally  vital,  was  destined  to  trouble  the  Church.  It  was 
based  by  its  originator,  Eutyches,  the  head  of  a  monas- 
tery at  Constantinople,  on  some  expressions  of  S.  Cyril's.  ^ia,^i, 
Eventually  the  struggle  raged  round  a  single  expression 
'of  the  Saint's.    S.  Peter  Chrysologus  had  urged  upon 

'  Pope  S.  Celestine  sent  his  delegates  '  to  declare  judgment  on 
the  sentiments  of  the  Bishop  ;  not  yourselves  to  undergo  a  trial.' 
They  arrived  too  late  ;  but  when  they  stated  the  position  they  were 
.sent  to  assume,  no  dissentient  voice  was  raised.  Already  the 
Council  had,  in  obedience  to  the  Pope's  letter,  deposed  Nestorius,  as 
themselves  say,  '  compelled  through  the  sacred  canons  and  the 
letter  of  our  most  Holy  Father  and  fellow-minister  {(svWinoxjpfov) 
Celestine.'  S.  Peter  calls  himself  a  fellow-elder  in  addressing  the 
elders  to  whom  he  writes  in  his  Epistle.  Our  Lord  says  that  He  is 
amongst  His  disciples  '  as  he  that  ministereth.'  The  argument  which 
the  Literary  Churclunan  used  in  reviewing  my  book  on  '  Authority  ' 
would,  if  good,  not  simply  disprove  the  Papal  position,  but  estab- 
lish the  Presbyterian.  It  would  also,  applied  to  the  gospels,  dis- 
prove our  Lord's  divinity. 


38 


'  Peter  hath  spoken  by  Leo ' 


Eutyches  to  submit  himself  to  Rome,  '  since  blessed 
'  Peter,  who  both  lives  and  presides  in  his  own  See,  gives 
'  the  truth  of  the  Faith  to  those  who  seek  it.'  Eutvches, 
however,  was  by  no  means  prepared  to  submit.  But  S. 
Leo  entered  into  correspondence  with  Flavian,  the  holy 
Archbishop  of  Constantinople,  on  the  subject,  somewhat 
censuring  him  for  not  ha%-ing  sooner  sent  the  matter  to 
.^d  Rome.  Flavian  remitted  the  cause  at  once  to  the  Pope, 
ilbb^c'onc.  giving  a  reason  for  the  delay.  He  also  asked  the  Pope 
to  condemn  Eutyches  in  writing,  which  S.  Leo  did. 

The  cause  of  Eutyches  was  now  espoused  by  the 
Patriarch  of  Alexandria,  Dioscorus,  and  the  Emperor 
Theodosius  was  enlisted  in  their  cause.  A  General 
Council  was  suggested,  and  S.  Leo  consented.  S.  Leo 
acted  all  through  as  S.  Chrysostom  represents  S.  Peter  as 
conducting  himself,  both  at  the  election  of  Matthias  and 
at  the  Council  of  Jerusalem.  The  same  eVietKeia  which 
he  notices  in  S.  Peter  is  displayed  by  S.  Leo.  Without 
abating  one  iota  of  the  authority  with  which  he  was  in- 
vested, he  yet  sought  rather  to  secure  the  acceptance  of 
the  truth  than  to  moot  the  question  of  his  own  authority. 
In  consenting  to  a  Council  being  called,  S.  Leo  ex- 
pressly reminded  both  the  Emperor  and  the  Synod  that 
there  was  no  room  for  doubt  on  the  question  of  faith ; 
but  that  their  office  was  to  learn  and  spread  the  interpreta- 
tion of  S.  Peter's  confession  as  given  by  S.  Peter  himself, 
i.e.  the  Holy  Apostolic  See  ('tanquam  ab  ipso  beatissimo 
'  Petro  cuperet  declarari,  quod  in  ejus  confessione  laudatum 
Epp  82  and  '^^^  '  ^'^^  Council  was  not  to  discuss  the  question  of 
9°-  faith  as  though  it  were  open,  but  to  condemn  Eutyches, 

'  ut  pleniori  judicio  omnis  possit  error  aboleri.'  A  fuller 
judgment,  i.e.  the  Council's  judgment,  following  on  the 
lines  of  his  own,  was  to  be,  as  it  were,  the  filling  up  on 
the  part  of  the  members  of  the  irrevocable  decision  pro- 
nounced by  the  head.    It  could  not  add  to  the  internal 


*  Peter  hath  Spokeri  by  Leo ' 


39 


value  of  the  judgment  pronounced  by  the  head,  but  it 
would  manifest  it,  and  impart  an  external  solemnity  and 
persuasiveness  in  the  eyes  of  those  who  were  ensnared  in 
error.  The  bishops  would,  if  faithful,  connect  them- 
selves, or  proclaim  their  connection,  with  their  head,  and 
condemn  Eutyches  by  their  common  judgment,  or  else 
acquit  hira  if  he  recanted.  (Letter  to  the  Synod,  June, 
449.)  At  the  same  time  S.  Leo  wrote  his  celebrated 
letter  to  Flavian,  containing  a  dogmatic  exposition  of  the 
mystery  of  the  Incarnation — written  to  the  whole  Christian 
world,  defining  the  Faith  as  obligatory  on  all  Christians. 
Perhaps  we  may  safely  say  that  no  more  important  letter 
had  been  written  to  the  Church  since  the  volume  of  Holy 
Scripture  had  been  closed.  The  bishops  of  France  ex- 
pressed the  sense  of  the  whole  Church  when  they  said 
to  S,  Leo,  of  that  tome,  '  Doctrinae  post  Deum  vestrae  i.ai^he.Conc. 
'debet  fidelis,  ut  constanter  teneat  quod  credebat.' ' 

But  the  Synod  issued  in  the  most  disgraceful  scenes. 
Violence  was  used  by  Dioscorus,  and  the  bishops  were 
compelled  to  sign  the  deposition  of  Flavian  and  Eusebius, 
and  the  old  Archbishop  died  in  a  few  days  of  the  injuries 
he  received.  Eutyches  was  acquitted  and  restored  to 
his  monastery.  The  Council  was  henceforth  known  by 
the  name  of  the  Robber  Synod. 

S.  Leo  now  pressed  the  Emperor  and  the  Empress 
Pulcheria  to  summon  another  Synod  to  undo  the  work 
of  the  Ephesine  catastrophe.  The  Emperor  was  un- 
willing to  move  in  the  matter,  but  was  anxious  to  induce 
S.  Leo  to  confirm  the  election  of  Anatolius  to  the 
patriarchate  of  Constantinople.  The  Pope  required  of 
Anatolius  a  profession  of  faith,  and  insisted  on  his  not 
neglecting  to  consider  carefully  his  own  letter  to  Flavian 
containing  his  ex  cathedra  defmition  of  the  whole  mystery 

'  '  The  faithful  owes  it  to  your  teaching,  after  God,  that  he  holik 
'  fast  what  he  believed.' 


40 


'  Peter  hath  spoken  by  Leo ' 


of  the  Incarnation.  He  sent  legates  to  teach  the  Emperor 
the  true  faith,  and  says  in  a  letter  to  Pulcheria,  in  re- 
ference to  Anatolius,  '  And  let  him  agree  to  my  letter 
'  which  was  addressed  to  Flavian  of  holy  memory.'  ' 

Marcion  now  succeeded  to  the  imperial  throne,  and 
wedded  Pulcheria.  He  at  once  expressed  his  willingness 
to  convene  a  Council  at  S.  Leo's  bidding.  He  uses  the 
word  {a-ov  aWevTovvTOi,  '  with  your  authority  or  authorisa- 
tion ')  which  S.  Chrysostom  uses  of  S.  Peter  when  he 
says  that  S.  Peter  might  have  acted  on  his  own  authority 
in  the  election  of  S.  Matthias.  But  the  Pope  did  not 
think  there  was  any  immediate  hurrj' ;  indeed,  he  seemed 
still  to  have  hoped  that  peace  might  be  restored  without 
the  paraphernalia  of  a  General  Council.  The  savage 
Huns  were  already  at  their  desolating  work  in  Gaul,  and 
it  seemed  almost  dangerous  for  the  bishops  to  meet  in 
numbers.  But  the  Emperor  pressed  the  matter  and  the 
Pope  consented. 

Let  us  pause  for  a  moment.  How  clearly  does  all 
this  show  who  was  the  ruler  of  the  Church.*  Emperors, 
patriarchs,  and  bishops  recognise  a  primacy  in  the  Bishop 
of  Rome,  not  of  honour,  but  of  rule.  He  is  seen  feeding 

'  '  Non  aspernetur  etiam  meam  epistolam  recensere.'  ('  Let  him 
'not  disdain  to  examine  closely  ray  letter.')  Canon  Bright  softens 
this  down  into  '  he  (S.  Leo)  added  that  his  own  letter  might  de- 
'  serve  consideration.'  But  the  letter  to  Pulcheria  proves  that  S.  Leo 
insisted  on  definite,  positive  consent  to  his  letter  on  the  part  of 
Anatolius. 

-  Canon  Bright  speaks  of  Leo  being  '  vexed  by  the  promptitude 
'  of  the  summons  '  ;  but  there  is  no  ground  for  this  in  the  Saint's 
letters.  He  had  previously  himself  been  forward  to  suggest  the 
Council,  and  there  is  no  ground  for  supposing  him  to  have  been 
hypocritical  in  consenting.  Canon  Bright's  remark  {History  of  the 
Church,  p.  399)  that  '  Leo,  finding  that  Marcion  had  taken  his  own 
'  line,  professed  to  ascribe  it  to  a  pious  zeal,'  rests  on  no  grounds  and 
is  unworthy  of  the  Professor.  It  was  just  an  instance  of  that 
€iri«//(€ia  which  evidences  real  greatness. 


'  Peter  JiatJi  Spoken  by  Leo' 


41 


the  sheep  of  Christ's  flock,  including  archbishops  and 
bishops  in  the  distant  East,  and  not  only  feeding  them 
with  the  truths  of  the  deposit,  but  ruling  them  with  the 
shepherd's  crook  in  the  name  of  the  blessed  Peter. 
Ilot/xaivc  TO.  TrpofSard  fiov  was  our  Lord's  injunction — not 
only  feed,  but  shepherd,  guide,  rule.  And  here  was  the 
successor  of  Peter,  the  acknowledged  Trot/myV  of  the 
Christian  Aad?,  acting  in  avowed  obedience  to  our  Lord's 
commission  to  Peter  all  over  the  Christian  world. 

In  his  letter  to  the  Synod  S.  Leo  is  careful  to  explain 
that  the  confession  of  faith  on  the  '  Sacrament  of  the 
Incarnation  '  had  been  '  most  fully  and  clearly '  declared  Labbe,Conc. 
in  his  own  letter  to  Flavian.  He  tells  them  also  that  '-'^-"^-^s- 
he  shall  preside  by  his  legates,  so  that  they  may  not  be 
ignorant  of  what  he  teaches  as  the  ancient  tradition,  and 
what  he  wishes  to  be  done. 

The  Synod  is  assembled.  The  Papal  Legate  rises  in 
the  midst  and  demands  that  the  Patriarch  of  Alexandria 
be  degraded  from  the  seat  he  had  taken.  He  insists 
on  obedience,  and  Dioscorus  retires  to  the  middle.  As 
the  Patriarch  of  Constantinople  afterwards  said  to  S.  Leo, 
'  Thou  didst  preside,  as  the  head  over  the  members,  in 
'those  who  held  your  place.'  '  We  are  commissioned,' 
said  the  legates,  '  by  the  most  holy  and  apostolic  Bishop 
'  of  Rome,  which  is  the  head  of  all  the  churches,  to  forbid 
'  Dioscorus  sitting  in  the  assembly  or  voting  with  it.' 

At  the  end  of  this  first  session,  the  imperial  commis- 
sioners reminded  the  assembly  of  Leo's  letter.  MVe 
'  have  read  it,'  the  bishops  exclaimed. 

In  the  next  session,  the  question  of  the  Eutychian 
heresy  came  on.  The  Bishop  of  Sebastopol  rose  up  and 
said,  '  The  Archbishop  Leo  has  given  us  a  decree  or  norm 
'  (rvTTos),  which  we  have  already  signed.'  The  rest  cried 
out,  '  That  is  what  we  also  say ;  the  declaration  given  by 
'  Leo  suffices.' 


42 


'  Peter  JiatJi  spoken  by  Leo  * 


It  is  evident  from  this  that,  so  far  as  the  Faith  was 
concerned,  they  considered  that  the  question  was  already 
settled.  They  had  not  come  together  to  discuss  that. 
S.  Leo's  letter  had  settled  it. 

But  it  must  be  remembered  that  there  was  a  further 
question  to  be  decided,  and  that  was,  the  exculpation  of 
S.  Cyril  from  the  imputation  of  Eutychianism.  Dioscorus 
had  rested  his  case  on  words  of  S.  Cyril.  Did  Cyril, 
then,  teach  what  S.  Leo  had  taught  them  as  the  true 
Faith  ?  S.  Cyril  represented  the  Pope  at  the  last  General 
Council,  and  his  authority  in  Alexandria  was  immense. 
Was  Dioscorus  right  in  quoting  S.  Cyril  in  his  favour  ? 

Further,  was  it  certain  that  the  bishops'  assent  to  S. 
Leo's  tome  was  an  intelligent  act  ?  There  were  bishops, 
we  know,  who  could  not  write.  It  was,  therefore,  a  matter 
of  moment  that  they  should  not  merely,  on  the  score  of 
authority,  acquiesce  in  S.  Leo's  teaching,  true  as  they  felt 
it  must  be.  Else  how  would  they  teach  others  ?  Besides, 
a  bishop  has  an  office  to  perform  towards  the  Faith,  from 
which,  if  he  is  called  to  a  Council,  he  cannot  escape. 
He  has  a  function  of  'judgment.'  Bishops  are  'con- 
'  judices '  with  their  infallible  head.  And  although  the 
ex  cathedra  judgment  of  the  head  is  secure  of  divine 
assistance,  the  Episcopate  has  a  function  and  duty  of 
approbation,  when  called  upon  by  the  Head  of  the 
Church,  which  is  not  that  of  a  blind  instrument,  but  of 
an  intelligent  being. 

Moreover,  we  are  expressly  told  that  there  were 
expressions  in  S.  Leo's  letter  which  were  difficult  of  un- 
derstanding to  some  ;  so  that,  though  they  could  sign 
for  themselves,  they  could  not  explain  them  to  others. 
Again,  we  also  gather  from  the  Acts  that  there  were 
difficulties  arising  from  linguistic  differences.  Nothing, 
therefore,  could  be  more  natural  than  that  an  intelligent 
assent  should  be  secured  on  the  part  of  bishops  who  had 


'  Peter  hath  Spoken  by  Leo  ' 


43 


received,  through  their  consecration,  the  office  of  judge, 
in  subordination  to  their  infallible  head. 

The  bishops  then,  at  this  session,  avowed  their 
willingness  to  abide  simply  by  S.  Leo's  declaration  as 
to  the  '  Sacrament,'  or  mystery,  of  the  Incarnation.  But 
this  did  not  satisfy  the  imperial  commissioners.  They 
insisted  upon  it  that  the  patriarchs  of  each  diocese  (or 
larger  district)  should  make  sure  that  their  bishops  under- 
stood what  they  had  signed,  and  were  about  to  sign,  so 
that  there  might  be  no  kind  of  doubt  about  the  Faith ; 
so  that  no  bishop  would  be  able  afterwards  to  say  that 
he  signed  as  at  the  Robber  Synod,  where  Dioscorus  had 
induced  them  to  subscribe  to  a  blank  paper. 

The  Bishop  of  Sardis  even  then  suggested  that  Leo's 
letter  was  sufficient,  and  that  there  was  no  time,  as  there 
was  no  need,  to  draw  up  any  formula. 

But  it  was  obvious  that  S.  Leo's  long  letter  would  not 
exactly  serve  the  purpose  of  a  short  definition,  and  that 
it  was  important  to  say  to  the  world,  that  S.  Leo's  teaching 
was  in  e.xact  accord  with  the  teaching  of  Niciea,  although 
an  expansion  of  it,  and  that  S.  Cyril  had  not  taught  as 
Dioscorus  had  asserted. 

Accordingly,  the  imperial  commissioners  pleaded 
that  they  should  do  something  more  than  merely  exclaim 
that  they  were  satisfied  with  S.  Leo's  Tome. 

They,  therefore,  read  the  symbol  of  Nicaea,  and  the 
bishops  exclaimed,  '  It  is  what  Cyril  taught,  and  what  the 
'  Pope  Leo  believes.'  They  then  read  the  Creed  of  Con- 
stantinople, and  S.  Cyril's  letters,  on  which  Dioscorus 
had  relied,  and  then,  Leo's  letter  to  Flavian — and  the 
Church  resounded  with  the  cries,  '  Peter  hath  spoken  by 
'Leo:  this  is  what  Cyril  taught.' 

Thus  Leo  occupied  to  them  the  place  of  Peter,  and 
S.  Cyril's  memory  was  cleared  from  the  imputation  of 


44 


'  Peter  hath  spoken  by  Leo  ' 


Eutychian  teaching,  and  Eutyches  and  Dioscorus  were 
convicted  of  unsoundness  in  the  Faith. 

The  imperial  commissioners  asked  the  question, 
'  Has  anyone  any  doubts  remaining  ? '  and  were  greeted 
with  the  cry,  '  No  one  ! ' 

But  although  no  bishops  would  oivn  to  a  doui>t,  there 
were  at  any  rate  some,  from  Illyria  and  Palestine,  who 
had  difficulties.  They  wished  to  understand  a  little  more, 
and  their  wish  was  acceded  to.  It  was  settled  that  Anatolius 
should  entertain  the  bishops,  at  his  own  house,  and  that  he 
should  choose  out,  from  amongst  those  that  had  signed, 
some  who  were  best  able  to  '  instruct '  those  who  had 
difficulties  in  the  matter  from  whatever  cause.  '  It  was 
' seemly,' they  said,  'to  persuade  all  who  were  perplexed.' 
Here  was  no  question  of  revising  the  Pope's  declaration 

'  Hist.  oftVe  of  faith  ;  it  was  a  case  of  'instruction'  and  'persuasion.' 

^o'^7"and'4w.'  Cauon  Bright's  account  of  S.  Leo's  'judgment  as  to  doc- 
'  trine,'  that  it  was  '  first  reviewed  and  then  confirmed  as 
'  by  a  superior  court,'  finds  no  countenance  in  the  actual 
History  of  the  Council.  Before  a  document  is  signed,  it 
must  be  read  and  the  terms  understood  ;  and  a  Papal 
decision  acquires  an  external  solemnity,  and  a  persua- 
siveness and  facility  of  conviction,  from  the  adherence  of 
the  bishops.  Its  position  is  strengthened  and  confirmed 
to  the  world  at  large.  But  it  is  clear  that  the  Acts  of 
the  Council  negative  any  notion  of  confirmation  by 
the  Council  as  that  of  a  superior.  Their  adherence 
strengthened  the  cause  of  the  Faith,  and  proclaimed  to 
the  world  at  large  that  they,  in  the  exercise  of  a  peculiar 
prerogative,  as  consecrated  with  the  unction  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  led  the  way  in  confessing  the  Faith  which  Peter 
had  declared  by  Leo.  They  do  not  say  that  the  question 
of  faith  had  remained  undecided  until  they,  by  their  con - 
ciliar  action,  had  confirmed  it.  They  nowhere  act  as  a 
superior  court,  or  sit  in  judgment  on  S.  Leo's  Tome.  They 


'  Peter  hath  Spoken  by  Leo '  45 


seek  to  understand  it,  and  to  give  it  an  intelligent  adhe- 
sion, and  to  see  its  harmony  with  Scripture  and  tradition. 
But  they  act  all  along,  as  Anatolius  '  afterwards  described 
their  conduct,  as  members  in  presence  of  their  head. 

And  now  the  imperial  commissioners  have  with- 
drawn, and  the  church  is  filled  with  none  but  ecclesi- 
astics. The  case  of  Dioscorus  has  to  be  decided.  The 
legates  assume  the  presidency,  and  direct  Eusebius  of 
Dorylaeum,  the  veteran  champion  of  the  Faith,  against 
Nestorius  first,  and  now  against  Eutyches,  to  read  his 
case  against  Dioscorus.  Then  the  legates  issued  their 
solemn  sentence.  Let  us  remember  that  the  Fathers  are 
not  asked  first  to  give  their  votes;  and  that  the  accused  man 
is  no  less  a  personage  than  the  Patriarch  of  Alexandria. 
The  sentence  ran  thus:  '  For  these  reasons,  Leo,  the  most 
'  holy  Archbishop  of  Rome,  declares  by  us,  and  by  the 
'  most  holy  Synod  here  present,  and  in  union  with  the 
'  blessed  Apostle  Peter ' :  The  legates  are  his  represen- 
tatives, the  Holy  Synod  his  instrument  of  solemn  publi- 
cation, and  the  Petrine  prerogative  of  his  See  is  the  source 
of  his  authority.  It  continues: — (Peter)  'who  is  the 
'  rock  and  support  of  the  Catholic  Church  and  the  found- 
'  ation  of  the  orthodox  faith,  that  Dioscorus  is  stripped  of 
'  his  archbishopric,  and  of  all  ecclesiastical  dignity.  After 
'  that  the  most  holy  and  great  Synod  will  decide  in  re- 
'  gard  to  the  before-mentioned  Dioscorus  what  shall  seem 
'  conformable  to  the  canons.' 

And  echo  answers  'Yes.'  The  Synod  echoed  the 
sentence  of  the  Pope  and  obediently  proceeded  to  sub- 
scribe the  sentence  of  deposition. 

And  now  the  commissioners  reappear  on  the  scene 
and  ask  what  has  been  decided.  Paschasinus,  the  legate, 
replies  that  the  Holy  Synod  preserves  intact  the  rule  of 
faith  of  the  Niceno-Constantinopolitan  Fathers  ;  and  that 
'  Archbishop  of  Constantinople. 


46 


'  Peter  hath  spoken  by  Leo ' 


it  recognises  the  explanation  of  this  symbol  furnished  by 
Cyril  at  Ephesus.  But  this  was  not  all.  This  would  not 
meet  the  emergency,  which  demanded  an  application,  by 
way  of  expansion,  to  the  case  of  Eutyches  and  Dioscorus. 
This  had  been  supplied  by  the  teaching  of  the  Tome  of 
Leo.  Accordingly  the  legate  went  on  to  say  that  the 
writings  of  the  most  holy  Archbishop  of  all  the  Churches, 
Leo,  expounded  the  contents  of  the  true  faith.  '  In  like 
'  manner  the  Holy  Synod  holds  this  Faith,  follows  this,  and 
'  can  neither  add  to  it  nor  diminish  from  it.'  A  few  bishops 
who  had  had  difficulties  declared  that  these  had  been 
cleared  up,  and  that  they  '  believed  with  Leo.' 

It  is  clear,  then,  from  the  whole  history  so  far,  that  the 
Tome  of  S.  Leo  was  not  subjected  to  an  examination  of 
revision.  Before  this  examination,  on  which  Canon 
Bright,  and  indeed  all  Galileans  and  Anglicans  have  been 
wont  to  rely,  it  had  al)-eady  been  accepted  by  the  Council, 
and  therefore,  on  all  conceivable  principles,  it  was  beyond 
See  Jung-  the  rcach  of  revision.  It  was  accepted  as  the  foundation 
Htrto'r.  of  the  Council's  exposition  of  faith,  by  a  morally  unani- 
dSs.'Io,  mous  consent  of  the  Fathers.  It  was  received  as  the 
rule  of  faith  by  universal  acclamation,  before  the  subscrip- 
tion and  exposition  of  their  reasons  on  the  part  of  some 
of  the  Fathers.  It  was  not,  therefore,  received  in  that  4th 
session  for  purposes  of  confirmation  or  revision,  but  it 
was  proposed  to  them  for  their  signature.  It  was  not, 
as  I  have  remarked  above,  S.  Leo's  aim  to  emphasize  his 
own  authority.  His  desire  was  to  secure  the  acceptance 
of  the  faith  he  expounded,  as  in  accordance  with  the 
ancient  tradition.  He  acted  as  a  true  guardian  of  the 
deposit,  and  secured  his  end.  He  was,  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  recognised  throughout  the  proceedings  as  the  ruler 
of  the  Universal  Church. 

And  when  the  Fathers,  in  the  5th  session,  came  to 
put  forth  their  own  profession,  whilst  they  declare  their 


*  Peter  hath  Spoken  by  Leo ' 


47 


adhesion  to  the  synodal  letters  of  S.  Cyril  to  Nestorius 
and   to  the   Orientals  as   containing  a  refutation  of 
Nestorianism  (a  point  which  needed  to  be  laboured 
because  of  the  endeavours  of  Dioscorus  to  shelter  him- 
self under  the  name  of  Cyril),  they  join  to  them  '  for  the 
'  confirmation  of  the  orthodox  dogma,  the  letter  of  the 
'  most  holy  Archbishop  Leo  of  Rome  written  to  Flavian 
'  for  the  extirpation  of  the  errors  of  Eutyches.'    They  had 
been  called  together  to  condemn  Eutyches,  and  they  do 
it  by  expressing  first  their  adhesion  to  the  Papal  exposition 
of  the  mystery  of  the  Incarnation;  but  they  add,  'for  this 
'  letter  coincided  with  the  doctrine  of  S.  Peter,  and  is  a 
'  pillar  against  all  heretics.'    Strange,  indeed,  that  Canon 
Bright  should  be  able  to  write  after  all  this,  that  '  Then 
'  did  the  council  sit  in  judgment  on  the  Tome,  and  stamp 
'  it,  after  due  examination,  with  the  approval  of  a  superior 
'authority,'  when  the  Council  is  perpetually  proclaiming 
itself  as  simply  bowing  to  the  authority  of  S.  Peter, 
speaking  through  Leo,  and  giving  in  its  adhesion  to  the 
teaching,  which  in  their  4th  session  they  had  described 
as  an  exposition  of  the  true  faith.    The  Monophysites 
were  declaiming  against  the  new  exposition  of  the  Tome 
that  it  offended  against  the  ancient  faith;  the  Imperial 
party  feared  that,  without  some  declaration  as  to  its  actual 
conformity  with  the  doctrine  of  the  previous  Councils,  it 
would  be  hard  to  rebut  the  assertion  of  heretics,  that  it 
contravened  S.  Cyril's  teaching,  as  well  as  the  Nicene 
Faith  :  a  certain  number  of  bishops,  however  few,  hardly 
understood  the  mode  of  reconciling  the  new  application 
with  the  older  statements.    These  were  the  points  that 
the  Council  settled.    The  Tome  of  Leo,  which  they 
accepted  from  him  as  having  been  'set  over  all  {ttuo-i  Anatoiius' 
K-a^to-ra/zevos)  as  the  interpreter  of  the  voice  of  Peter,'  was  Leo."'" 
in  accordance  with  the  faith  of  Niccea,  and  was  not  a 
condemnation  of  Cyril's  teaching.   These  were  the  points 


48 


'  Peter  hath  spoken  by  Leo ' 


■which  they,  the  proper  judges,  along  with  their  infaUible 
head,  were  commissioned  and  ready  to  proclaim  to  the 
Christian  world.  They  never  lose  sight  of  S.  Leo's 
special  connection  with  S.  Peter,  and  they  never  comport 
themselves  as  a  superior  authority  to  his,  whom  they 
afterwards  call  their  head. 

In  the  solemn  session  that  succeeded,  graced  by  the 
presence  of  the  Emperor  Marcian  and  the  Empress 
Pulcheria,  the  points  are  still  the  same.  The  Emperor 
had  addressed  an  allocution  to  the  Council  in  which  he 
said,  '  God  has  given  the  Synod  a  combatant  against  all 
'  errors,  in  the  person  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  who,  like 
'  Peter,  always  so  zealous,  desired  to  conduct  all  the  world 
'  to  God.'  And  now  in  his  speech  he  says  that  the  very 
purpose  for  which  he  had  convoked  the  Synod  was  that, 
'  for  the  future,  no  one  might  dare  to  put  forth  concerning 
'  the  birth  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  any 
'  other  opinion  than  that  which  was  taught  by  the  Apostles, 
'defined  by  the  3 1 8  holy  Fathers,  and  witnessed  to  in  the 
'  letter  written  by  the  holy  Pope  Leo.' 

Clearly  they  did  not  meet  to  '  review  and  confirm ' 
the  Tome  of  S.  Leo,  any  more  than  to  '  confirm '  the 
Nicene  Faith,  but  to  provide  that  its  teaching  should  be 
proclaimed  as  the  norm  of  the  Faith.  And  the  salient 
feature  of  the  whole  history  of  the  Council,  in  its  ante- 
cedents and  issues,  is  the  fulfilment  of  our  Lord's 
promise  to  S.  Peter,  'I  have  prayed  for  thee,  that  thy 
faith  fail  not  ;  and  do  thou,  in  thy  turn,  strengthen  thy 
brethren.'  Peter  spoke  by  Leo,  and  Leo  shepherded  the 
flock  of  Christ.  Peter  failed  in  the  Passion;  but  (i)  he 
was  not  then  Pope,  and  (2)  he  did  not  then  pronounce 
an  ex  cathedra  judgment.  After  Pentecost  he  was,  as  S. 
Chrysostom  says,  airto?  iravToiv,  the  responsible  originator 
of  all.  And  S.  Leo,  his  successor,  closed  the  four  great 
decisions  on  the  mystery  of  the  Incarnation,  and  gave  to 


'  Peter  hath  Spoken  by  Leo ' 


49 


the  Church  that  luminous  exposition  of  the  Faith,  which 
lias  been  called  '  a  clear,  forcible,  intelligible  textbook  on  Bright's 
'  both  aspects  of  the  Incarnation  mystery  .  .  .  indeed  one  c^i'rch/'^ 
of  the  most  precious  documents  in  Christian  literature.'  chapter."' 
So  far,  then,  the  history  of  the  Council  discloses  that 
the  principle  of  the  Church's  unity  consisted,  not  in  so 
many  autonomous  provinces,  who  agreed  in  their  symbol 
of  faith,  but  in  a  certain  hierarchical  order  amongst  the 
bishops,  welding  them  together  as  one  body.  Constanti- 
nople, Alexandria,  and  Antioch,  beyond  all  question, 
accepted  a  position  of  subordination  to  the  Bishop  of 
Rome.  A  decree  not  yet  signed  by  the  Bishop  of  Rome 
was  not  considered  to  have  reached  its  final  stage.  It 
was  not  yet  a  decree  of  the  one  body,  welded  together 
with  the  defined  correlation  of  its  several  parts,  cul- 
minating in  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  who,  it  will  be  admitted 
universally,  held  at  least  a  primacy  of  honour.  Nicsea, 
Constantinople,  Ephesus  had  brought  out  the  reality  of 
his  position  more  and  more  clearly  ;  but  it  was  reserved 
for  Chalcedon  to  emphasize  this  headship  more  clearly 
still. 

And  no  thought  expresses  itself  more  frequently  in 
the  whole  history  of  the  Council  than  the  peculiar  re- 
lationship in  which  the  Bishop  of  Rome  stood  to  the 
Apostle  Peter.  All  bishops — nay,  in  a  sense  all  the  laity, 
who  held  the  true  faith — could  be  in  a  manner  christened 
with  the  name  of  Peter.  When  a  bishop  named  Peter, 
in  the  Council,  passed  over  to  the  orthodox  side,  they 
exclaimed,  '  Peter  has  gone  to  Peter.'  S.  Augustine,  in 
commenting  on  our  Lord's  words  to  Peter  concerning 
his  faith  failing  not,  applies  them  to  every  Christian. 
But  just  as  the  Presbyterian  is  wrong  in  not  seeing  the 
peculiar  sense  in  which  it  is  applied  to  a  bishop— as,  for 
instance,  in  S.  Chrysostom's  opening  passage  on  the 
priesthood — so  it  is  a  similar  mistake  to  ignore  the 

E 


50  '  Peicr  hath  Spoken  by  Leo ' 

peculiar  and  supereminent  sense  in  which  the  name  of 
Peter  is  apphed  to  the  'holy  Archbishop  of  Rome.' 

But  if  S.  Leo's  position  was  due  to  this  relation  to 
Peter,  that  position  is  evidently  part  of  the  essential  and 
Divine  constitution  of  the  Church. 


TJic  Cano7i  Invalidated 


CHAPTER  III. 

THE  CANON  INVALIDATED. 

The  salient  feature  of  Oriental  ecclesiastical  life  was, 
alas  !  ambition.  '  New  Rome,'  in  the  days  of  Constantine, 
had  been  the  enthusiasm  of  the  East.  The  Imperial 
residence  had  made  it  a  real  necessity  that  the  ecclesias- 
tical machinery  for  the  East  should  have  its  spring  in 
the  new  centre  of  the  civil  order.  The  local  synod  of 
Constantinople,  where  bishops  from  distant  parts  were 
constantly  coming  and  going,  necessarily  assumed  a 
paramount  position  and  became  a  centre  of  authority. 
If  only  an  Apostle  had  fixed  his  See  on  the  banks  of  the 
Thracian  Bosphorus  !  But  the  Apostles  were  guiding 
the  Church  from  Jerusalem  above,  and  Constantinople 
could  never,  alas  !  become  an  Apostolic  See.  S.  Peter 
had  settled  his  disciple  Mark  at  Alexandria,  had  himself 
resided  at  Antioch,  and  finally  settled  at  Rome.  Con- 
sequently Rome,  Alexandria,  and  Antioch  had  their 
position  of  superiority  from  the  beginning,  which  the 
Nicene  Fathers  had  recognised  and  confirmed  as  their 
essential  right.  But  a  long  series  of  encroachments  had 
placed  Constantinople  in  a  position  of  practical  superiority 
to  Alexandria  and  Antioch.  It  was  the  Imperial  ambition 
that  the  New  Rome  should  in  all  respects  vie  with  the 
old.  But  the  Nicene  Fathers,  in  their  sixth  canon,  had 
included  it  only  amongst  the  other  'eparchies.'  In  the 
2nd  Council,  however,  a  partially  successful  move  had 

£  2 


52 


TJie  Canon  Invalidated 


been  made,  and  Constantinople  had  been  mentioned  as 
second  only  to  Rome.  But  although  the  Papal  legate 
had  seemed  to  recognise  its  new  position,  that  third 
canon  never  obtained  oecumenical  acceptance.  It  was 
never  inserted  in  the  authorised  collection  of  Church 
canons.  '  Rome  and  the  West  have  never  recognised  its 
'  contents,'  said  S.  Leo  to  the  Empress.  '  It  was  never 
'  brought  to  the  knowledge  of  the  Apostolic  See,'  he  tells 
Anatolius.  It  contained,  in  fact,  a  principle  which  had 
never  received  the  sanction  of  the  Church.  It  desired 
to  give  the  Bishop  of  Constantinople  '  an  honorary  pre- 
'  cedence '  next  after  Rome,  on  the  ground  of  its  being 
'  New  Rome.'  But  this  suggested  the  principle  that  the 
Bishop  of  Rome  owed  his  position  to  the  greatness  of  the 
city.  Whereas  the  ecclesiastical  rank  of  a  see  was  due,  not 
to  its  civil  grandeur,  but  to  its  Apostolic  origin.  Its  title 
to  respect  was  from  heaven,  not  of  earth.  Rome,  accord- 
ing to  S.  Cyprian,  was  the  'principal  or  ruling  Church, 
'whence  sacerdotal  unity  took  its  rise,'  because  it  was 
the  '  Chair  of  Peter.'  The  Fathers  at  Sardica  had  said 
that  it  would  be  best  to  refer  matters  from  the  various 
provinces  'to  the  head,  that  is  to  the  See  of  Peter.'  S. 
Augustine  had  spoken  of  the  foundations  of  the  Church 
having  been  laid  in  the  '  Apostolic '  Sees,  and  Rome  was 
to  him  the  Church,  '  in  which  Peter  sat,  and  in  which  now 
'  Anastasius  sits.'  S.  Leo,  and  S.  Gregory  the  Great  after 
him,  expressly  stated  the  principle  that  the  rank  of  Alex- 
andria and  Antioch  were  due  to  their  association,  the 
one  directly  and  the  other  indirectly,  with  tne  Apostle 
Peter.  And  these  sees,  thus  connected  witli  Peter  and 
raised  to  the  rank  of  second  and  third  in  the  hierarchy, 
had,  as  we  have  said,  been  acknowledged  by  the  Nicene 
Fathers,  and  their  rank  secured  to  them  by  a  Nicene 
canon.  But  Constantinople  never  rested ;  and  at  a 
meeting  at  Chalcedon  after  the  canons  had  been  drawn 


The  Canon  Invalidated 


53 


up,  including  one  somewhat  favourable  to  the  claims  of 
Constantinople,  and  to  the  principles  of  the  civil  status 
of  a  See  conferring  on  it  an  ecclesiastical  rank,  200  or  so 
of  the  Fathers  drew  up  another  canon.  They  did  not 
finally  enact  it  in  the  full  sense  of  the  word  ;  for  how 
could  the  East  act  cecumenically  without  the  West  ? 
They  drew  it  up  for  acceptance  by  the  Pope.  This  they 
declare  in  set  terms.  It  is  really  playing  with  words  to 
call  their  petition  to  the  Pope  to  accept  the  canon  mere 
compliment.  The  circumstances  were  these  :  It  was  the 
hour  for  the  Patriarcli  of  Constantinople  to  strike  ;  Ana- 
tolius  was  equal  to  the  occasion.  The  circumstances 
were  extraordinarily  favourable  for   his   move.      The  See  Hefeie 

-■-.•11  ■  1    •      °"  '5'^ 

Papal  legates  were  absent ;  the  sees  most  mterested  m  Session  of 

,  .         ,  .  ,  ,     .  chalcedon. 

opposmg  his  schemes  were  either  vacant  or  their  occu- 
pants absent  or  under  his  influence.  Alexandria  was 
vacant,  and  Ephesus.  Antioch  was  represented  by 
Maximus,  the  creature  of  Anatolius,  as  Hefeie  calls  him  ; 
and  Juvenal,  Patriarch  of  Jerusalem,  was  under  special 
obligations  to  Anatolius.  Thrace  was  not  there,  and 
Caesarea  did  not  sign. 

The  canon,  then,  was  drawn  up,  boldly  asserting 
the  principle  that  the  '  Fathers  gave  '  Rome  her  prece- 
dence by  reason  of  the  Imperial  nature  of  the  city.  The 
legates,  when  the  Council  met  for  the  last  time,  protested 
against  what  had  been  done  in  their  absence.  They  read 
to  the  Assembly  the  sixth  canon  of  Nicsea.  They  read 
a  version  of  it,  which  commenced  with  a  sentence  that 
had  no  bearing  on  the  controversy,  and  which  was  not  in 
the  Greek  version.  It  asserted  that  the  said  canon  began 
with  saying,  '  The  Roman  Church  always  had  the  primacy.' 
No  controversy  arose  on  the  subject.  It  was  not  under 
dispute.    Aetius,'  perhaps,  read  the  Greek  version,  and 

'  Canon  Bright  (History  of  the  Church,  last  chapter),  speaks 
of  Aetius  producing  the  genuine  text  of  the  6th  canon  as  a  rebuff. 


54 


TJie  Canon  Invalidated 


no  notice  was  taken  of  the  difference.  The  question  was 
(i)  as  to  the  relative  positions  of  Constantinople  and  the 
two  patriarchates  of  Alexandria  and  Antioch,  not  as  to 
the  relation  between  Constantinople  and  Rome,  and  (2), 
as  to  the  ground  on  which  Rome  had  acquired  her  pre- 
eminent patriarchal  position.  The  question  of  Rome's 
primacy  over  the  Universal  Church  did  not  enter  into 
the  discussion.  There  is  no  trace,  nor  hint,  of  this  being 
in  the  minds  of  the  bishops.  There  is  much  to  posi- 
tively forbid  our  supposing  that  such  a  different  topic  was 
even  distantly  alluded  to.  The  Bishop  of  Rome  was  the 
Primate  of  the  Universal  Church,  Patriarch  of  the  West, 
Metropolitan  of  a  certain  region  round  Rome,  and  Bishop 
of  Rome.  The  question  mooted  by  the  proposed  canon 
was  wholly  concerned  with  the  question  of  patriarchal 
honour.  The  Council  of  Nicaea  had  recognised  the  in- 
stitution of  patriarchs,  though  without  the  name,  and  it 
was  to  this  that  Constantinople  aspired,  and  to  a  recogni- 
tion as  second  only  to  Rome.  But  in  order  to  secure 
this,  it  was  necessary  to  lay  down  the  principle  that 
greatness  in  the  secular  order,  and  not  the  fact  of  Apos- 
tolic origin,  determined  ecclesiastical  rank.  The  Council 
of  Nicfea  had  said  nothing  about  this.  It  dealt  with  the 
order  of  things  already  in  vogue,  and  confirmed  to  Alex- 
andria and  Antioch  the  position  they  enjoyed  as  superior 
Metropolitans,  or  Patriarchs  as  they  were  afterwards  called, 
to  distinguish  them  from  ordinary  Metropolitans. 

The  Nicene  Fathers  merely  based  their  confirmation 

and  says,  'To  this  rebuff  the  legates  could  make  no  answer.' 
The  Acts  of  the  Council  do  not  seem  to  bear  out  this  version  of  the 
scene.  Mr.  Gore  (iV.  C.  Claims,  p.  96)  speaks  of  the  legates' 
text,  as  '  expressly  disallowed  by  the  East.'  It  was  not  discussed. 
The  Ballerini  have  given  reasons  for  supposing  that  the  Greek  ver- 
sion is  an  intercalation  by  a  copyist,  a  view  which  Hefele  favours. 
Mr.  Gore's  note  is  altogether  misleading. 


TJie  Carton  hivalidated 


55 


of  the  rights  of  Alexandria  and  Antioch  on  the  analogy  of 
Roman  rule.  They  said,  in  effect,  Rome  has  set  the  ex- 
ample of  subordinating  certain  sees  to  certain  others  ;  let 
Alexandria  and  Antioch  continue  in  their  similar  groove. 
They  gave  no  reason  for  thus  adhering  to  the  order  of 
things  inaugurated  by  Rome.  There  was  no  call  for  a 
reason.  The  bishops,  therefore,  at  Chalcedon  under  Ana- 
tolius'  influence,  simply  made  an  unhistorical  statement 
when  they  asserted  that  the  Nicene  Fathers  gave  Rome  her 
patriarchal  rights  on  the  score  of  being  the  Imperial  city. 
The  Nicene  Fathers  simply  said  that  the  ancient  usage 
should  prevail.  As  to  where  or  on  what  authority 
this  custom  arose  they  were  silent.  If  any  Fathers  had 
really  '  given '  her  patriarchal  rights  to  Rome,  it  could 
clearly  only  have  been  at  an  cecumenical  synod.  But 
Nicaea  did  not  give  them  ;  it  found  them  already  estab- 
lished. And  as  to  the  principle  of  following  in  the  wake 
of  secular  greatness,  the  Fathers  said  nothing.  The 
Apostles  did,  indeed,  choose  the  large  cities  for  the  scene 
of  their  labours  :  but  the  sees  thus  founded  by  Apostles 
in  central  positions  acquired  their  ecclesiastical  rank,  not 
because  they  were  centrally  situated,  but  because  Apostles 
founded  them.  It  happened  that  Anatolius,  Patriarch  of 
Constantinople,  had  sat  next  to  Rome  at  the  Council, 
with  the  assent  of  the  legates  ;  but  the  Patriarch  of 
Alexandria  was  Dioscorus,  under  accusation  ;  and  as 
for  Antioch,  it  was  not  yet  settled  whether  Maximus  or 
Domnus  was  the  lawful  bishop. 

This  28th  canon,  therefore,  had  no  positive  tradition 
whereon  to  rest.  Indeed,  it  contradicted  ancient  tra- 
dition. 

But  the  Council  never  pretended  that  they  had  power 
to  enact  a  canon  of  such  magnitude,  or  to  stamp  it  with 
cecumenicity,  apart  from  Papal  confirmation.  The  ne- 
cessity of  such  confirmation  was  assumed  on  all  sides. 


56 


Tlic  Canon  Invalidated 


Indeed,  as  it  was,  the  canon  was  no  more  than  an  Eastern 
decree,  if  that.  No  single  Western  bishop  had  signed  it. 
As  it  stood  it  had,  therefore,  no  sort  of  claim  to  be  oecu- 
menical. 

The  bishops,  before  parting,  composed  a  letter  asking 
for  the  Pope's  confirmation  of  their  canon.  Canon 
Bright  speaks  of  their  letter  as  'carr)'ing  diplomatic 
'courtesy  to  an  excess.'  There  is  really  no  ground  what- 
ever for  this  statement.  The  terms  which  the  bishops 
use  had  been  used,  or  at  least  their  equivalents,  in  the 
Council  itself.  They  use  a  crucial  word,  which  contains 
nothing  that  can  be  called  diplomatic  courtesy,  except 
by  a  serious  petitio  principii.  They  tell  the  Pope,  in 
sending  him  their  letter,  that  they  had  taken  him  as 
their  guide,  in  order  '  to  show  to  the  sons  of  the  Church 
'the  inheritance  of  the  truth.'  This  was,  as  we  have 
seen,  the  sober  literal  truth.  They  speak  of  the  Pope  as 
having  been  to  them  'the  interpreter  of  the  voice  of 
'  Peter.'  This  the  Council  had  expressly  said  when  the 
bishops  exclaimed,  '  Peter  hath  spoken  by  Leo.'  They 
speak  of  their  business  having  been  prosperously  conducted 
by  God's  grace,  and  through  S.  Euphemia  (in  whose 
church  they  had  met),  and  they  feel  that  she  'had 
'  transmitted  its  doctrinal  decree  as  her  own  to  her  bride- 
'  groom  Christ  by  the  hand  of  the  Emperor  and  the 
'  Empress.'  To  those,  of  course,  who  do  not  believe  in 
the  active  intervention  of  the  saints  in  the  life  of  the 
Church,  this  will  seem  mere  sentiment ;  but  then  the 
whole  Church  did  believe  in  such  a  relationship  between 
the  'wayfarers'  and  those  that  had  reached  the  goal. 
Finally,  they  inform  the  Pope  that  they  have  sent  to 
him  what  they  have  done,  alluding  especially  to  their 
canons,  'for  confirmation  and  assent,'  /3ey8atWtV  re  koL 
(rxr/KaTaOecnv. 

There  is  no  'excess  of  diplomatic  courtesy'  here. 


Tlie  Canon  Invalidated 


57 


The  word  they  use  when  they  ask  for  the  Papal  '  confiriua 
'  tion  '— /3€y8aiu)crtj' — is  the  very  word  used  by  the  Emperor 
Marcian  afterwards  with  reference  to  the  same  necessity. 
And  the  Emperor  was  not  likely  to  be  guilty  of  an  excess 
of  '  diplomatic  courtesy.'  Further,  Anatolius  himself 
writes  to  the  Pope,  and,  after  stating  that  '  the  Apostolic 
'  throne  had  from  early  times  cared  for  the  throne  of 
'  Constantinople  and  had  ungrudgingly  imparted  of  its 
'  own '  (sober,  crucial,  most  memorable  expressions,  coming 
from  the  Patriarch  of  Constantinople),  he  proceeds  to  say 
that  '  the  Synod  and  himself  had  transmitted  that  decree ' 
(alluding  to  the  28th  canon)  'to  him  for  his  approval 
'  and  confirmation '  (rrwatVea-t?  Kat  ^SeySatoriys),  and  he 
adjures  the  Pope  to  give  this,  for  'the  Apostolic  throne  was 
'  the  father  of  that  of  Constantinople i" 

The  Emperor  joins  in  with  the  same  entreaty. 

The  situation  is  this:  Emperor,  Patriarch,  and  Bishops 
are,  as  it  were,  on  their  knees  before  the  Pope,  in  entreaty 
that  he  would  confirm  the  canon  which  placed  Constanti- 
nople above  Alexandria  and  Antioch,  and  second  only 
to  Rome  in  patriarchal  honour,  and  that  because  of  its 
secular  splendour  as  the  Imperial  centre. 

No  need  to  say  that  they  believed  Leo  to  be  Primate 
of  the  Universal  Church.  No  thought  crossed  their 
minds,  that  even  the  entire  East  could  be  an  autonomous 
portion  of  the  universal  Church.  No  other  conception 
of  the  unity  of  the  Church  than  as  cemented  by  its 
culminating  point,  the  successor  and  representative  of  the 
blessed  Apostle  Peter.  No  need  for  Leo  to  indulge  in 
platitudes  about  his  own  authority,  thus  amply  recognised 
and  ungrudgingly  accepted. 

But  the  canon  represented  a  grievous  sin,  which  was 
destined  to  affect  the  future  peace  of  the  Church. 

Imperial  influence  and  secular  ambition  were  the 
explanation  of  their  entreaties. 


58 


The  Canon  bivalidated 


Without  obtruding  the  fact  of  his  authority,  Leo 
acted  upon  it. 

He  authoritatively  blotted  out  the  canon  from  the 
decrees  of  the  Church. 

From  his  various  letters,  we  can  gather  the  following 
motives  which  induced  him  to  exercise  his  'Petrine 
'prerogative,'  and  annul  the  canon. 

1.  There  was  no  sufficient  reason  for  putting  Con- 
stantinople above  Alexandria  and  Antioch.  Secular 
majesty  was  no  measure  of  hierarchical  superiority. 

2.  The  canon  infringed  upon  the  rights  of  the  others, 
and  was  opposed  to  the  Xicene  canons,  of  which  he  was 
bound  to  be  the  faithful  guardian. 

3.  The  decree  of  a.d.  381  (the  3rd  canon  of  Con- 
stantinople) was  not  oecumenical.  It  was  unknown  to 
the  West.  It  had  never  been  confirmed  by  the  Holy 
See. 

4.  The  canon  was  due  to  ambition  on  the  part  of 
Anatolius,  and  was  signed  by  some  under  undue  pressure. 

5.  The  present  distresses  of  Alexandria  and  Antioch 
were  no  reason  for  diminishing  their  rights,  of  which  the 
Pope  was  the  official  guardian. 

Accordingly  S.  Leo  -writes  to  the  Emperor,  and  refuses 
his  assent.  He  says  of  Anatolius  that,  whilst  the  Imperial 
city  is  not  to  be  lightly  esteemed,  it  cannot  be  made  into 
an  Apostolic  See. 

He  writes  to  the  Empress  Pulcheria,  and  tells  her 
that  the  lapse  of  years  since  the  decree  of  '  some  bishops  ' 
(at  the  Council  of  Constantinople)  has  not  validated  that 
canon.  And  as  for  this  resolution  of  the  Bishops  (the 
28th  canon),  'which  is  contran-  to  the  Nicene  decree, 
'  in  union  with  the  piety  of  your  faith,  I  declare  it  to  be 
'  invalid,  and  I  annul  it  by  the  authority  of  the  holy 
'Apostle  Peter.' 

To  the  Patriarch  of  Constantinople,  Anatolius,  he 


TJic  Canon  Invalidated 


59 


writes  that  '  he  should  be  free  from  pride,  which  was  the 
'cause of  the  first  sin.'  He  tells  him  that  the  canon  is  in 
violation  of  the  Nicene  decrees,  so  that  he  cannot  give 
it  the  seal  of  his  consent  ;  that  the  3rd  canon  of  Con- 
stantinople had  never  been  sent  to  the  Pope,  and  had 
never  been  valid  from  the  beginning.  And  '  the  See  of 
'  Alexandria  cannot  be  deprived  of  the  dignity  which  it 
'  received  on  account  of  Mark,  the  disciple  of  Peter, 
'  notwithstanding  the  apostasy  of  Dioscorus  ;  nor  Antioch, 
'  where  Peter  preached,  and  where  the  name  of  Christian 
'  first  arose,  be  lowered  from  its  rank  as  third.' 

Now  let  us  pause  for  a  moment  to  apply  the  principles 
that  emerge  from  this  history  to  the  situation  in  England  in 
the  sixteenth  century.  They  are  drawing  up  new  canons. 
Convocation  has  to  accept  a  new  statement  concerning 
the  relation  of  Canterbury  to  Rome.  It  makes  a  decla- 
ration of  its  own  autonomy.  Where  is  the  Papal  con- 
firmation ?  Its  very  purport  is  to  do  away  with  Papal 
confirmation.  It  sunders  its  existing  ties  with  its  superior 
Metropolitan  or  Patriarch,  and  thus  contravenes  the 
Nicene  canon.  It  proclaims  that  such  relations  are  no 
essential  feature  of  the  Divine  institution.  But  here 
even  Constantinople  does  not  venture  to  act  in  inde- 
pendence of  Rome.  The  entire  East  does  not  venture 
to  proclaim  its  own  autonomy.  Did  the  East  discover 
fresh  truths  as  to  the  form  of  unity  centuries  afterwards  ? 
That  would  be  a  theory  of  development  indeed.  Here, 
at  any  rate,  within  the  period  of  the  first  four  CEcumenical 
Councils  the  unity  of  the  Church  is  conceived  of  as 
involving  a  relationship  to  the  Apostolic  See  connected 
with  the  name  of  Peter — pointing,  in  fact,  to  the  Gospels, 
implying  its  own  Divine  institution.  The  history  of  the 
whole  Council  contains  within  itself  the  condemnation 
of  the  canon  itself.  Certainly  no  precedency  due  to  a 
secular  cause,  nothing  short  of  a  sense  that  the  relation- 


6o  Tlie  Canoji  Invalidated 


ship  of  all  parts  of  the  Church  to  the  Holy  See  is  that  of 
members  to  a  head,  and  that  this  is  the  essential  form  of 
her  unity,  can  explain  the  history  of  the  fourth  General 
Council.  The  Synod  of  Chalcedon,  the  Emperor  Marcian, 
and  the  Patriarch  of  Constantinople,  each  and  all  of 
them  dealt  with  Leo's  confirmation  as  necessar)-  to  the 
validity  of  the  canon. 

What  Constantinople  did  was  to  continue  its  encroach- 
ments. It  never  laid  its  ambition  aside.  It  had  been 
the  mother  or  nurse  of  all  the  heresies  concerning  the 
holy  Incarnation  ;  and  from  never  conquering  its  besetting 
sin  of  ambition,  it  ended  in  tearing  itself  away  from  the 
Church  and  passing  into  a  schism.  It  lost  its  vitality, 
and  became,  as  is  ever  the  case  with  religious  communions 
when  severed  from  the  Holy  See,  Erastian  to  the  ven-  core. 

But  what  it  did  7iot  do  in  the  days  of  Chalcedon  was 
to  deny  in  terms  the  authority  of  the  Holy  See. 

Anatolius  wrote  to  Leo  to  say  that  he  yielded.  In 
doing  so  he  acknowledged  that  the  authority  of  Leo 
was  necessar}'  for  the  validity  '  of  such  things.'  Nothing 
more  transpired  concerning  the  canon.  No  further 
appeal  was  made  to  it  at  that  time,  and  it  was  omitted 
from  the  authorised  collection  of  canons  even  in  the 
East.  When,  in  12 15,  Constantinople  was  at  length 
allowed  to  take  precedence  of  Alexandria,  it  was  not  on 
the  score  of  this  canon.  It  was  for  the  convenience  of 
the  Church  that  it  should  eventually  take  rank  after 
Rome.  But  the  principle  enunciated  in  the  28th  canon 
was  censured  by  its  repudiation.  This  repudiation  gave 
rise  to  the  idea  in  the  East  that  Leo  had  refused  to  con- 
firm the  definition  of  the  Faith  drawn  up  at  Chalcedon. 
Accordingly  the  Emperor  wrote  again  to  Leo  to  ask  him 
to  signify  his  confirmation  of  that,  which  Leo  did  with 
an  express  limitation  to  the  matter  of  faith,  to  the  ex- 
clusion of  the  canon. 


TJic  Cano7i  Invalidated 


6i 


We  are  now  in  a  position  to  consider  how  far  we  can 
depend  on  the  summary  of  the  fourth  Council  given  in 
Canon  Bright's  '  History  of  the  Church.' 

Speaking  of  Leo  he  says  :  '  His  judgments,  whether  as 
'  to  an  individual  or  as  to  a  doctrine,  were  first  reviewed 
'  and  then  confirmed.'  We  have  seen  in  a  previous 
chapter  that  he  sent  his  Tome  to  be  their  guide,  and  not 
to  be  discussed  except  with  a  view  to  understanding  it 
and  receiving  it  with  an  intelligent  adhesion. 

'  His  version  of  the  Nicene  Canons  was  rejected  as 
'  corrupt.'  We  have  seen  that  the  legate's  version  was 
accurate  for  the  purpose  in  hand,  and  that  its  correctness 
was  not  discussed. 

'  A  canon  which  he  could  not  but  dislike  was  enacted 
'  in  spite  of  his  legate's  protest,  and  enforced  throughout 
'  the  East  in  spite  of  his  own.'  We  have  seen  that  the 
canon  was  only  enacted  in  the  sense  of  being  drawn  up 
for  Leo's  adjudication,  and  was  dropped  by  Anatolius 
and  the  Emperor,  though  the  ambitious  projects  expressed 
in  it  were  secretly  continued. 

'And  he  himself  was  content  to  denounce  it,  not  on 
'  the  ground  of  "  S.  Peter's  prerogatives,"  but  simply  in  the 
'  name  of  the  Council  of  Nicsea.'  We  have  seen  that  the 
negative  here  and  the  word  '  simply '  are  not  justified  by 
the  facts  of  the  case.  As  the  authoritative  guardian  of 
the  Nicene  Canons,  being  the  successor  of  S.  Peter,  he 
insisted  on  their  observance,  and  rejected  a  dangerous 
innovation. 

In  fact,  the  whole  circumstances  do  but  illustrate  S. 
Leo's  obedience  to  our  Lord's  precept  to  S.  Peter,  '  Feed 
'  {i.e.  govern)  My  sheep.'  Leo  governed  the  flock,  lead- 
ing them  into  the  pastures  of  heavenly  doctrine  ;  and,  if 
they  would  but  have  listened  to  his  warning  words,  the 
schism  that  eventually  killed  out  the  life  of  the  East 
might  have  been  avoided.    A  Photius,  perchance,  would 


62 


The  Canon  Invalidated 


have  been  impossible,  and  perhaps  a  Luther  would 
never  have  arisen.  And  (who  knows  ?)  a  Tudor  tyrant 
might  never  have  wrested  from  the  Church  the  'island  of 
'  Saints.' 

There  is  one  argument  adduced  by  Mr.  Gore  in  the 
second  edition  of  his  '  Roman  Catholic  Claims '  (p.  98) 
which  I  must  not  omit  to  notice.  By  way  of  showmg 
that  the  28th  canon  had  some  authority,  he  refers  to  the 
3rd  canon  of  the  Council  of  Constantinople,  to  which 
he  says,  quoting  from  Canon  Bright,  it  referred  back. 
We  have  seen  that  the  said  3rd  canon  did  not  acquire 
oecumenical  acceptance.  He  then  quotes  a  sentence 
from  Dr.  Salmon,  who  adduces  as  a  proof  of  the  Church's 
acceptance  of  the  28th  canon,  the  following  fact  :  'The 
'Quinisext  Council,  681,  confirmed  all  the  Chalcedon 
'  canons  without  exception.'  No  doubt  it  did.  But  can 
any  student  of  history  attach  the  smallest  value  to  what 
the  Quinisext  Council  did  ?  Here  is  a  succinct  history 
of  that  Council  given  in  Harper's  '  Peace  through  the 
'  Truth,'  vol.  ii.  : — 

'  Ten  years  after  the  close  of  the  sixth  Oecumenical 
'  Council  (or  the  third  of  Constantinople,  convened  in 
'  that  city  in  a.d.  681,  for  the  condemnation  of  the  Mono- 
'  thelite  heresy),  this  assemblage  of  bishops  was  ordered 
'  by  the  Emperor,  Justinian  H.,  and  held  its  sittings  in 
'  Trullo — a  hall,  so  called,  of  the  Imperial  palace.  It  is 
'  for  this  reason  sometimes  called  the  Council  in  Trullo  ; 
'  sometimes  it  goes  by  the  name  of  the  Quini-sext,  because 
'  it  was  regarded  by  the  Greeks  as  a  sort  of  supplement  to 
'  the  fifth  and  sixth  CEcumenical  Councils.  These  latter 
'  had  issued  no  disciplinary  canons;  and  the  Greek  bishops 
'  were  summoned  professedly  to  supply  this  omission. 

'  For  several  reasons  its  Acts  displeased  the  Supreme 
'  Pontiff,  and  accordingly  nothing  would  induce  him  to 
'  accept  or  confirm  them.   In  the  first  place,  "  the  Canons 


1  lie  Canon  Invalidated 


63 


'  "  of  the  Apostles,"  as  the)'  were  called,  had  been  declared 
'apocryphal  by  the  Western  Church  ;  yet  they  were,  in 
'  its  Acts,  pronounced  to  be  authentic  and  obligatory. 
'And  this  imp?-iinatur  not  only  embraced  the  first  fifty 
'  canons,  but  extended  to  thirty-five  which  follow  in  the 
'Greek  collection.  Among  these  latter,  however,  were 
'  two  which  taught  a  heresy  already  of  long  time  con- 
'  demned.  In  the  second  place,  the  ancient  disciplinary 
'canons  concerning  the  celibacy  of  the  clergy  were 
'  annulled,  and  a  most  scandalous  laxity  encouraged  by 
'  its  decrees.  In  the  third  place,  those  wily  Greeks  had 
'  endeavoured  to  gain  their  point  about  the  See  of  Con- 
'  stantinople,  by  smuggling  into  their  Acts  that  same  canon 
'  which  they  had  managed,  on  previous  occasions,  to  get 
'  inserted  among  the  decrees  of  general  Councils,  without, 
'  however,  being  ever  able  to  obtain  its  confirmation  from 
'  the  Pope.  Fourthly,  the  Council  had  not  been  convened 
'  by  the  Pope,  but  by  the  Emperor  (alone). 

'Justinian  knew  full  well  how  essential  it  was  to 
'  their  validity  that  these  Acts  should  be  confirmed  by 
'  the  Vicar  of  Christ.  He  accordingly  sent  a  copy  of  them 
'  to  Rome,  and  demanded  that  Sergius  should  afifix  his 
'  signature.  The  Pope  would  neither  receive  them  nor 
'  allow  them  to  be  read  in  his  presence,  declaring  that  he 
'  would  rather  suffer  death  than  confirm  such  errors.  The 
'  Emperor,  on  receiving  information  of  the  Pontiffs  firm- 
'  ness,  or — as  he  and  his  courtiers  would  have  doubtless 
'  termed  it — obstinacy,  sent  his  first  equerry  to  Rome  with 
'  orders  to  seize  the  person  of  the  Holy  Father,  and  to 
'  bring  him  by  force  to  Constantinople.  It  was  easier 
'  said  than  done.  For  the  armies  of  the  West  heard  of 
'  the  proceeding  ;  and  as  they  were  not  inclined  to  part 
'  with  their  Pope  so  easily,  they  concentred  on  Rome. 
'The  unfortunate  Zacharias,  the  aforesaid  equerry,  be- 
'came  alarmed  for  his  life,  and  saved  the  latter  at  the 


64 


The  Canon  Invalidated 


'  expense  of  his  official  dignity,  by  seeking  a  safe  asylum 
'  under  the  Pope's  bed.  Sergius  persuaded  the  excited 
'  multitude — for  the  populace  en  masse,  some  armed,  others 
'  unarmed,  had  surrounded  the  Pontifical  Palace  as  a  body- 
'  guard  of  volunteers — to  spare  the  life  of  the  poor  abject 
'  wretch  ;  so  they  contented  themselves  with  driving  this 
'  tool  of  a  lawless  Emperor  out  of  the  gates  of  Rome, 
'amid  a  perfect  storm  of  groans  and  execrations.' 

One  more  unsuccessful  attempt  was  made  to  get  the 
Trullan  Canons  confirmed  by  John  VII. 

It  is  not  true,  as  Fleury  asserted,  that  the  Papal 
legates  were  ever  present  at  the  conciliabulum  in  Trullo. 

Mr.  Gore  and  Dr.  Salmon  do  not,  therefore,  gain 
anything  by  their  appeal  to  this  Council.  It  only  shows 
the  conviction,  on  all  sides,  that  the  Papal  confirmation 
was  necessary  for  the  validity  of  an  oecumenical  canon,  and 
that  they  could  not  obtain  it  for  the  canons  in  question. 

And  yet  is  there  anything  on  which  the  High  Church- 
man in  the  Establishment  rests  his  case  more  confidently, 
than  the  idea  that  the  primacy  of  Rome  was  due  to  the 
Imperial  greatness  of  the  city,  and  not  to  its  relationship  to 
S.  Peter?  And  is  there  any  passage  in  history  on  which 
he  more  confidently  depends  for  proof  of  this  contention, 
than  on  the  28th  canon  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  ? 

We  have  shown  that  it  did  not  embody  the  mind  of 
the  Church. 


Liberius,  the  Co7ifessor 


CHAPTER  IV. 

LIBERIUS,  THE  CONFESSOR. 

To  Peter,  then,  our  Lord  entrusted  His  flock  to  be  fed 
and  ruled  by  him,  and  his  successors  after  him  {rol%  ixct 
Ikm'ov).  And  our  Lord  prayed  for  him  that  his  faith 
might  not  fail.  This  was  to  be  the  law  of  the  Church — 
Satan  sifting  the  rulers  of  the  Church,  as  wheat,  and  our 
Lord  praying  for  Peter.  Peter,  in  his  successors,  was 
ever  sure  of  the  Divine  assistance  in  his  official  guardian- 
ship of  the  flock  of  Christ.  Peter  was,  as  the  Council  of 
Ephesus  called  him,  the  rock  of  the  Church,  and,  as  the 
same  Council  owned,  he  '  lives  and  presides '  in  his  See. 

But  did  not  Peter,  in  the  4th  century,  fail  in  the  person 
of  Liberius  ?  The  author  of  the  '  Roman  Question  '  says 
the  Bishop  of  Rome  simply  and  altogether  failed  at  a 
'  great  crisis.'  He  ignores  altogether  the  part  that  Pope 
Julius  played  in  the  same  century,  in  defending  S.  Atha- 
nasius  against  the  Eusebian  heretics.  He  imagines  that 
'  Athanasius  contra  Mundum '  means  Athanasius,  without 
even  the  See  of  S.  Peter  (p.  35).  Whereas  Athanasius 
triumphed,  standing  on  the  '  rock.'  He  considers  that 
Liberius  'actually  signed  an  Arian  or  semi-Arian  creed,' 
in  such  a  way  as  to  forfeit  any  claim  on  the  ]xart  of  Rome 
to  have  guided  the  Church  through  her  difficulties  in 
dealing  with  the  mystery  of  the  Incarnation. 

Dr.  Pusey  held  the  same.  Speaking  of  Liberius  he 
tells  us  that  '  Fortunatian,  Bishop  of  Aquileia  (who  had 

F 


66 


Lib  CI' ins,  the  Confessor 


'  lapsed  into  Arianism)  seduced  him  and  constrained  him 
'  to  subscription  of  heresy.'  The  quotation  is  from  a 
writing  of  S.  Jerome.  It  is  curious  that  Dr.  Pusey  should 
have  quoted  only  half  of  this  sentence  ;  for  the  other 
half  shows  that  the  writer  (who  was  probably  not  S. 
Jerome  at  all)  was  certainly  mistaken  in  his  facts.  And 
the  cause  given  for  Fortunatian's  presence  is  a  well-nigh 
impossible  one.  But  Dr.  Pusey  accepts  the  whole  of 
the  disputed  letters  of  S.  Hilary,  and  so  makes  out  a 
dismal  tale  indeed.  '  The  fall  was  miserably  complete. 
'  Such  a  fall  could  not  be  a  half-fall.'  One  does  not  quite 
see  why.  Certainly  Dr.  Pusey  goes  the  entire  length  of 
supposing  that  Liberius  entered  into  communion  with 
the  Arians,  repudiated  S.  Athanasius,  and  wrote  piteous 
letters  to  the  Emperor  entreating  him  to  restore  him  to 
Rome.    (Pusey's  '  Hist,  of  the  Councils,'  p.  170.) 

Canon  Bright  rises  to  his  full  powers  in  his  terse, 
graphic  description  of  the  situation.    He  accepts  the 
whole  programme,  with,  however,  more  caution  as  to 
V       what   creed  it  was  which  Liberius  signed.    He  too, 
trusting  to  S.  Jerome's  supposed  narrative,  attributes 
Liberius'  fall  to  Fortunatian,  and  winds  up  with  a  sen- 
tence which  so  impressed  itself  on  my  memory  that  after 
an  interval  of  twenty-nine  years  I  was  able  to  turn  to  the 
Hist,  of  the  very  place  on  the  page  in  which  it  occurs.    'Thus  (he 
^hurch,  p.    gays),  in  the  latter  part  of  357,  the  Roman  See  lost  its 
purity  of  faith.' 

Mr.  Gore,  the  Principal  of  Pusey  House,  following  in 
the  steps  of  these  teachers,  though  admitting  the  vindica- 
tion of  the  Faith,  on  the  part  of  the  See  of  Rome,  in  that 
century,  adopts  the  same  estimate  of  Liberius'  fall,  and 
R.c.  says  :  '  We  contend  that  if  anything  in  the  world  can  be 
^laims,  p.  ,  certain  '  (very  untheological  language), '  it  is  certain  that 
'  S.  Athanasius,  had  he  had  any  idea  of  the  Bishop  of 
'  Rome  being  in  a  unique  sense  the  guardian  of  the  faith, 


Liberins,  the  Confessor  67 


'  much  more  any  notion  of  his  infallibility,  must  have 
'  adopted  another  tone  in  regard  to  his  (Liberius')  fall. 
'  He  must  have  quivered  at  the  awful  shock  of  finding 
'  himself  deserted  by  the  "  Holy  Father  "  as  the  central 
'  dogma  of  the  faith.' 

Now,  the  case  of  Liberius  is  one  of  those  points  in 
history  that  have  received  a  great  deal  of  light  during  the 
last  few  years.  His  entire  history  may  be  compared  to 
one  portion  of  it,  which  meets  with  its  proper  fate  in 
Canon  Bright's  writings,  of  which  I  desire  to  speak  with 
the  deepest  respect. 

The  most  serious  accusations  against  Pope  Liberius 
are  founded  on  certain  passages  in  S.  Hilary,  especially 
what  is  called  his  Sixth  Fragment.  If  that  fragment  were 
genuine,  as  Dr.  Pusey  assumed  it  to  be,  and  also  Mr. 
Gore,  in  the  original  draft  of  his  book  on  '  Roman  Catholic 
'  Claims '  (p.  45,  note),  there  would  certainly  be  a  strong 
prima  facie  case  against  the  infallibility  of  the  Holy  See. 
Even  then,  Liberius'  case  would  not  amount  to  an  actual 
contradiction  of  the  Vatican  decree  ;  but  it  would  come 
very  near  to  it. 

But  the  genuineness  of  these  fragments  of  S.  Hilary, 
containing  the  imaginary  letters  of  Liberius,  is  never  likely 
to  recover  from  the  blows  that  have  been  dealt  it  by 
Hefele. 

In  i860.  Canon  Bright  introduces  into  his  text  the 
anathemas  on  Liberius  from  S.  Hilary's  Sixth  Fragment, 
as  well  as  a  portion  of  his  letter  from  another  fragment. 
In  a  note  he  says,  '  Baronius  thinks  these  expressions 
'  spurious,  the  invention  of  some  pseudo- Hilary.'  And 
that  is  all.  But  in  1873,  though  he  still  relies  on  Frag- 
ment "VI.,  he  speaks  of  the  authority  of  these  fragments 
havmg  been  doubted  by  others,  '  though,'  he  says,  '  most 
'  writers  think  them  genuine.'  Here,  then,  the  opening 
for  considering  them  spurious  is  somewhat  wider.  But 

F  2 


68 


Liber  his,  the  Confessor 


in  1881,  he  says  of  Liberius'  letters,  'Pro  Deifico '  (in 
Hilary,  Fragment  VI.),  and  'Studens  paci'  (in  Fragment 
V.)  'Both  are  probalily  forgeries.'  And  he  thinks  that 
the  'signing  'in  Hist.  Ari.  41  '  refers  not  to  any  doctrinal 
formula,  but  to  a  document  condemning  or  renouncing 
Athanasius.' 

So  that  we  may  consider  that  one  of  the  most  damaging 
witnesses  against  Liberius  has  disappeared. 

I  propose,  however,  to  show  that  altogether  the  fall 
of  Liberius  cannot  be  claimed  as  an  established  fad  ;  that 
if  he  signed  anything,  it  could  not  have  been  anything 
that  compromised  the  inerrancy  of  the  Holy  See  ;  and 
that,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  it  is  '  not  proved  '  that  he  signed 
anything.  More  than  this  I  do  not  attempt  to  show,  and 
this  amounts  only  to  showing  that  the  '  fall '  of  Liberius 
is  '  not  proven.' 

Now  it  is  certain  that  the  whole  contemporary  world 
in  which  Liberius  lived,  regarded  him  as  a  man  of  ex- 
traordinary- nobility  of  character,  and  a  most  zealous 
champion  of  orthodoxy.  There  is  not  a  varying  note  in 
contemporary  literature,  not  a  single  Father,  not  a  single 
historian,  but  speaks  of  Liberius — if  he  speaks  of  him  at 
all — as  one  of  the  most  illustrious  Pontiffs  that  ever  occu- 
pied the  Holy  See.  His  confessorship  up  to  the  time  of 
his  exile,  the  vigour  with  which,  according  to  S.  Athana- 
sius, he  opposed  Arianism,  and  stood  by  the  Saint  him- 
self, the  orthodoxy  with  which  he  ruled  the  Church  after 
his  exile,  the  pride  which  the  Roman  Church  took  in 
their  illustrious  ruler,  both  before,  and  during,  and  after 
his  exile,  are  all  established  by  orthodox  contemporary 
opinion.  And  all  this  forms  a  much  greater  difficulty  than 
is  to  be  found  in  S.  Athanasius'  supposed  attitude  of  ten- 
derness towards  Liberius'  supposed  lapse.  The  difficulty 
that  is  raised  by  those  facts  is  how,  on  any  known  prin- 
ciple of  interpretation,  to  reconcile  this  unvarying  esteem 


Liber  ins,  (he  Confessor 


69 


for  Liberius  by  the  whole  orthodox  world  with  the  notion  of 
any  complicity  with  heresy.    How  are  we  to  account  for 
Theodoret's  estimate  of  him,  containing  not  a  word  about 
this  supposed  fall  ?    What  are  we  to  say  of  S.  Ambrose's 
praise  of  Liberius,  when  writing  to  his  sister?    The  diffi- 
culty has  to  be  met,  that  in  so  many  competent  authorities  jungmar 
there  is  an  utter  silence  about  this  fall,  not  so  much  as  a  Liiie^'"' 
difference  of  opinion  on  the  matter,  no  consciousness  of  p- 
anything  to  the  discredit  of  this  illustrious  Pontiff  and 
Martyr,  nothing  to  be  cleared  up,  nothing  to  be  excused.  I 
put  out  of  the  question  Liberius'  supposed  letters  in  the 
'  Fragments  '  of  S.  Hilary,  since  Bishop  Hefele's  complete 
demolition  of  their  genuineness.    S.  Hilary  himself  was, 
in  fact,  a  warm  admirer  of  Liberius.' 

The  only  other  professed  historical  accounts  that  can 
be  quoted  in  favour  of  a  fall  on  the  part  of  Liberius,  if 
we  except  S.  Athanasius  (with  whose  account  we  shall 
deal  presently)  are  by  Sozomen  and  S.  Jerome. 

Now  Sozomen,  in  this  portion  of  his  history,  is  admitted 
to  be  sometimes  inaccurate,  and  he  himself  expressly 
tells  us  that  such  was  the  confusion  of  accounts  as  to 
the  Arian  troubles,  that  he  is  not  to  be  considered  a  liar, 
if  he  is  discovered  to  be  wrong  in  his  narration.  His 
narrative,  however,  does  not  oblige  us  to  believe  that 
Liberius  signed  anything  positively  heretical.  The  account 
would  be  satisfied  if  we  suppose  that  Liberius  signed 
,  something  which  was  open  merely  to  the  charge  of  reti- 
cence. We  know  that  Athanasius  did  not  consider 
reticence  as  to  the  word  Homo-ousion  to  partake  of  the 
nature  of  heresy.  But,  in  point  of  fact,  Sozomen's  whole 
account  bristles  with  errors  and  impossibilities.  It  is 
irreconcileable  with  that  of  S.  Hilary  on  one  point ;  and 
with  other  accounts  on  a  second ;  whilst,  on  a  third,  he  is 

'  See  Revue  des  Questions  Historiqites,  liv.  i. 


Libcrius,  the  Confesso7- 


plainly  wrong.  It  looks  as  if  he  had  mi.Kcd  up  Catholic 
and  Arian  documents,  and  let  some  of  the  Arian  calumnies 
creep  into  his  account. 

But  what  of  the  quotation  from  S.  Jerome,  '  he  (Libe- 
*  rius)  subscribed  to  heretical  depravity  '  ? 

Now  these  words  are  quoted  as  from  S.  Jerome's 
Tom.  xii.  '  Chronicon,'  a  book  of  which  Tillemont  says  :  '  Scaliger 
s.  Jerome.  ;  assure  qu'il  n"y  a  point  de  li\Tes,  dont  les  exemplaires  et 
'  manuscrits  et  imprimes  soient  plus  pleins  de  fautes.'  The 
passage  in  which  the  words  occur  bears  the  marks  of  an 
addition,  copied  in  from  an  untrustworthy  source,  the 
preface  to  the  Libellus  precum  Faustini  et  Marcellini. 
Besides,  we  should  have  to  suppose  that  S.  Jerome  knew 
of  the  supposed  lapse,  at  the  very  time  when  he  was 
speaking  of  Damasus  as  the  successor  of  the  Fisherman, 
whom  he  followed  as  the  authoritative  exponent  of  the 
Faith  ;  when  he  was  speaking  of  the  See  of  S.  Peter 
as  the  'rock  on  which  the  Church  is  built,  I  know.'  It 
is  in  the  highest  degree  improbable  that  S.  Jerome  would 
have  written  as  he  did,  if  he  knew  that  Liberius  had 
'  subscribed  to  heretical  depravity.'  Again,  the  supposed 
passage  from  the  'Viri  Illustr.' makes  Liberius  betray  the 
faith,  '  when  going  into  exile,'  which  will  not  square  with 
any  account. 

And  further,  the  words  quoted  as  from  the  'Chronicon' 
are  not  in  the  oldest  ]\IS.  of  this  work  of  S.  Jerome's, 
whilst  in  another  important  MS.  there  is  a  lacuna,  with- 
out sufificient  space  for  this  imaginary  sentence.  And 
lastly,  Rufinus,  S.  Jerome's  contemporar)',  can  ascertain 
nothing  about  Liberius  having  subscribed ;  and  Cassio- 
dorus,  having  before  him  Socrates,  Sozomen,  Theodoret, 
and  S.  Jerome's  'Chronicon,'  and  his  'Viri  Illustr.'  (which 
he  praises)  yet  has  nothing  about  Liberius'  supposed  fall ! 

But  what  are  we  to  say  of  the  words  so  often  quoted 
as  S.  Athanasius'  ?  They  are :  'After  a  banishment  of  two 


Liberius,  the  Confessor  J I 


'  years,  his  courage  was  broken,  and  he  subscribed,  through 
'  fear  of  death,  with  which  he  was  threatened.  But  .  .  . 
'  acts  done  under  torture,  contrary  to  the  mind's  original 
'  decision,  are  acts  of  the  tormentors,  not  of  their  victims.' 

And  there  is  a  similar  passage  to  this  which  is 
positively  inaccurate.  It  says  that  after  two  years  Liberius 
returned  from  exile,  which  is  unquestionably  inaccurate. 

And  yet  it  is  difficult  to  believe,  well-nigh  inconceivable, 
that  S.  Athanasius  could  have  been  mistaken  on  such  a 
point  as  this.  Yet  mistaken  he  was,  if  the  passage  is 
really  his.  A  visit  to  Sirmium  would  by  no  means  satisfy 
his  words.  Then,  the  assertion  that  Liberius  signed  in 
fear  of  death  does  not  square  with  the  accounts  of 
Sulpitius  Severus,  or  Socrates,  or  Theodoret.  How 
could  they  have  been  ignorant  of  this,  or,  knowing  it,  have 
passed  it  over  ? 

Further,  it  is  admitted  that  these  two  passages  in  S. 
Athanasius  which  relate  to  Liberius'  supposed  fall,  were, 
if  written  by  Athanasius,  a  subsequent  addition  to  his 
book.  His  Apology  was  finished  in  a.d.  352,  and  his 
history  before  the  supposed  lapse  of  Liberius  took  place. 
Could  he  have  added  these  passages  afterwards?  It 
would  be  a  strange  supposition  ;  and  stranger  still 
considering  that  Socrates  and  Theodoret,  writing  subse- 
quently, and  making  use  of  his  account,  step  by  step,  do 
not  follow  him  in  this  supposed  incident,  nor  even  allude 
to  it;  nor  does  even  Sozomen's  account  agree  with  this 
supposed  narrative. 

Nor  is  the  passage,  according  to  many  good  judges, 
in  the  style  of  S.  Athanasius;  and  the  Saint  nowhere 
alludes  to  his  supposed  addition  on  so  important  an 
event.  The  Greek  is  not  as  good  as  his,  and  the  reasoning 
is  very  unlike  S.  Athanasius'. 

Again,  whilst  Mr.  Gore  is  too  positive  in  his  assertion 
as  to  what  S.  Athanasius  would  say,  if  one  whom  he 


72 


Libcrius,  the  Confessor 


considered  to  be,  in  a  unique  sense,  guardian  of  the  faith, 
had  subscribed  to  heretical  depra\'ity,  still  there  is  a  cer- 
tain amount  of  truth  in  his  supposition  that  S.  Athanasius 
might  well  be  expected  to  say  something  more,  or  different 
from  what  he  did.  But  this  is  true  also  on  the  supposi- 
tion of  the  '  pre-eminence  of  the  See '  of  Rome,  which 
Mr.  Gore  admits. 

In  short,  the  difficulty  of  supposing  these  words  to 
be  those  of  S.  Athanasius  is  overwhelming,  and  we  are 
justified  in,  at  least,  doubting  them  to  be  his.^ 

On  the  whole,  then,  we  can  say  with  safet)'  that  the 
case  against  this  glorious  confessor  and  martyr  for  the 
faith,  whom  S.  Athanasius  so  highly  praises  in  his  unques- 
tioned wTitings,  is  '  not  proven.' 

^Ve  know  for  certain  that  the  Emperor  made  ever)' 
endeavour  to  win  Liberius  ;  not,  be  it  noted,  so  much  to 
sign  any  creed,  as  to  condemn  Athanasius.^  He  would 
have  been  quite  content  if  Liberius  would  have  condemned 
the  Saint  on  the  charges  of  immorality  which,  as  was 
their  custom,  the  heretics  had  brought  against  him.  The 
heathen  historian  tells  us  how  the  Emperor  felt  that, 
Marceihnus,  j^jj-j^Q^g]^  j^g  Seemed  to  have  gained  his  end  by  •«'inning 
over  the  mass  of  bishops  to  condemn  Athanasius,  he 
could  not  rest  until  he  had  succeeded  in  gaining  the  seal 
and  confirmation  of  '  that  authority  in  which  the  bishops 
'  of  the  eternal  city  surpass  the  rest  {potiores).^  But  in 
vain.  Liberius  stood  firm,  and  was  banished.  No  scene 
in  histor}-  is  giander  than  the  inter\-iew  of  Liberius  with 
the  heterodox  Emperor ;  nothing  would  induce  the  old 
man  to  yield.  So  Liberius  departed — an  admiration  to 
all,  says  S.  Athanasius.  He  returned  from  exile,  according 
to  the  -sntness  of  contemporarj'  literature,  at  the  prayers 

'  See  also  S.  Liber.  Ep.  13,  for  S.  Athan.  estimate. 
^  '  Ce  n'etait  pas  la  foy  dont  les  grands  Ariens  se  mettoient  en 
peine.' — Tillemont,  vi.  2,  69. 


Liber  ins,  the  Confessor 


73 


and  tears  of  the  Romans,  whose  attachment  to  their 
Pontiff  was  unswerving.  He  returned,  too,  by  the 
Emperor's  leave,  but  contrary  to  his  wish,  irapa  ry]v 
yvMfirjv  (Socrates,  ii.  37),  which  would  hardly  have  been  gozomen 
the  case  if  he  had  really  condemned  Athanasius,  or  signed  's- 
an  heretical  creed.  His  subsequent  rule  was  that  of  an 
unbending  champion  of  the  faith.  There  was  no  recan- 
tation, no  excuse  made,  no  question  raised.  The  Arians, 
we  know,  spread  abroad  the  rumour  that  he  had  in  some 
way  compromised  the  faith  ;  but  those  who  care  for  S. 
Athanasius'  fair  fame  will  not  credit  Arian  calumnies 
about  the  Bishop  of  Rome.  It  was  not  considered  worth 
while  anyone's  defending  the  Pontiff,  as  there  was 
nothing  worth  refuting.  He  died  with  the  crown  of  the 
martyr,  and  S.  Epiphanius,  and  S.  Basil,  and  S.  Siricius 
speak  of  him  as  '  that  blessed  bishop,'  without  a  suspicion 
of  any  stain  on  his  name,  and  Theodoret  enters  into  his 
praises  without  alluding  to  any  sort  of  lapse.  The  his- 
torians Socrates  and  Sozomen  know  of  the  calumnies, 
but  not  of  any  facts  to  support  them,  and  S.  Ambrose 
speaks  of  his  blessed  memory  and  his  holiness  of  life. 
The  forgeries,  as  they  certainly  are  in  S.  Hilary,  and  as 
they  probably  are  in  the  text  of  S.  Athanasius,  and  the 
supposititious  insertion  in  S.  Jerome's  'Chronicon,'  are 
due,  it  has  been  thought,  with  much  show  of  probability, 
to  the  Luciferian  Schismatics. 

But  besides  all  the  other  contemporary  evidence, 
which  is  not  merely  negative,  but  under  the  circumstances 
assumes  a  positive  character,  what  are  we  to  say  of  the 
incidental  expression  in  the  letter  of  the  bishops,  who 
left  the  Macedonian  sect,  addressed  to  Liberius,  in  which 
they  speak  of  him  as  one  who  '  has  always  stood  firm  '  ? 
This  was  after  his  return — five  or  six  years  after  the 
Council  of  Rimini. 

To  sum  up.     I  have  omitted  much  for  fear  of 


74 


Liber  ins,  the  Confessor 


crowding  my  pages  with  too  many  dry  historical  facts  ; 
but  what  I  have  adduced  lands  us  in  this  difliculty:  if  we 
believe  that  the  additions  to  S.  Athanasius'  works  are  by 
his  own  hands  and  to  be  trusted,  what  explanation  can 
be  given  of  the  fact  that  the  contemporary  orthodox  world 
could  speak  of  Liberius  in  the  enthusiastic  way  in  which 
it  does,  with  no  apparent  consciousness  that  he  had 
ever  been  under  a  cloud,  or  failed  in  his  duty— that 
there  is  no  syllable  recording  Liberius'  regret  for  his 
supposed  fall,  in  spite  of  his  admitted  sanctity,  no  sign  of 
sorrow,  no  confession  of  fault,  and  that  he  was  appealed 
to  by  bishops  returning  to  the  faith,  as  one  who  had 
'always  stood  firm,' in  contrast  with  themselves?  And 
all  this,  when  the  supposed  lapse  rests  only  on  a  later 
addition  to  Athanasius'  works,  spoiling  their  unity — on 
letters  which  Hefele  shows  have  every  mark  of  being 
spurious— and  on  a  passage  in  S.  Jerome,  not  in  the  oldest 
MS.  and  found  in  another  book,  or  on  a  misapprehension 
of  the  words  of  Socrates  and  Sozomen,  who  probably 
record  only  Arian  calumnies. 

It  will,  possibly,  be  said  that  there  must  have  been 
something  to  account  for  the  supposition,  even  on  the 
part  of  Arian  calumniators.  This,  of  course,  is  a 
necessity  that  a  Christian  will  be  slow  to  admit,  as  we 
know  that  calumny  may  rest  on  nothing.  Pilate  '  knew 
'  that  for  envy  they  had  delivered  Him.'  But  there  was 
a  scene  at  Rimini,  which  may  afford  a  clue  to  the  origin 
of  these  rumours  about  the  Pope.  When  he  received  the 
lapsed  bishops  into  communion,  in  the  exercise  of  his 
commission  to  loose,  and  of  a  forbearance  which  Athana- 
sius would  have  praised,  a  Puritan  spirit  evinced  itself  in 
the  Luciferiaris,  who  went  out,  and  uttered  a  number  of 
calumnies  against  Pope  Damasus,  and  said  that  Liberius 
'  manus  perfidise  dedit.'  An  incident  hkethis  shows  what 
was  '  in  the  air.'    It  is  quite  possible  that  Liberius  may 


Liberius,  the  Cofifcssor 


75 


have  taken  the  same  line  as  S.  Athanasius  did  on  occa-  Jungmann, 

'  Vindicia: 

sion,  in  treating  the  j-^w^-Arians  as  friends,  and  this  would  Liberii,' 
have  been  enough  for  Lucifcrian  animosity.  That  he 
went  further  seems  to  be  negatived,  as  well  by  the  con- 
siderations mentioned  above,  as  by  the  fact  of  his  having 
endeared  himself  in  so  marked  a  way  with  the  Romans. 
We  know  from  Theodoret  that  their  complaint  against 
Felix,  whom  the  Emperor  had  placed  at  Rome,  was,  that 
though  he  preserved  the  Nicene  formula  intact,  he  com- 
municated freely  with  the  waverers.  '  And  on  this  account 
'  no  one  of  the  Roman  citizens  entered  the  church  whilst 
he  (Felix)  was  inside.'  Their  enthusiastic  welcome  of 
Liberius  shows  that  they,  at  any  rate,  had  no  knowledge 
of  his  having  in  any  way  compromised  his  position  as 
guardian  of  the  Faith. 

Even  if  Athanasius'  account  were  certainly  genuine, 
Athanasius  is  himself  careful  to  tell  us  that  a  signature, 
under  such  circumstances,  had  no  value.  It  would  not 
compromise  the  inerrancy  of  the  Holy  See,  but  it  is  difficult 
to  fit  in  any  sort  of  compromising  signature  to  the  actual 
historical  setting. 

One  thing  at  least  is  certain,  and  that  is,  that  the  life 
of  Liberius,  as  a  whole,  impressed  itself  deeply  on  the 
mind  of  the  Catholic  world,  as  a  glorious  witness  to  the 
faith  of  Nicaea.  His  name  is  found  in  several  ancient 
Martyrologies,  and  the  Greeks  assign  August  27  to  his 
memory.  He  was,  in  fact,  one  more  of  that  long  list  of 
illustrious  pontiffs,  who  brought  it  about  that — as  Mr. 
Gore  admits,  on  the  whole,  or  as  we  should  say,  all  along 
the  line — 'the  orthodoxy  of  the  See  of  Rome  was  con- 
spicuous through  all  the  controversies  on  the  Trinity 
and  the  Incarnation'  (p.  193.)  The  statement  of  the  , 
author  of  the  '  Roman  Question '  on  the  subject  is  simply 
inexplicable,  and  can  only  be  called  a  libel  on  the  saintly 
occupants  of  the  Holy  See.    But  Mr.  Gore,  with  wider 


76 


Liberius,  tJie  Confessor 


knowledge,  admits  too  much  for  his  cause.  And  he 
fails  to  see  the  coincidetice  betNvcen  our  Lord's  promise  to 
S.  Peter  and  this  marvellous  orthodoxy  of  the  Holy  See. 
Compare  the  raging  heresies  of  the  East.  How  was  it 
that  Rome,  and  Rome  alone,  kept  so  clear  of  the  heresies 
that  disgraced  the  See  of  Constantinople  ?  How  was 
it  that  Rome,  in  her  Imperial  days,  always  resisted,  and 
Constantinople  mostly  yielded  to,  Imperial  dictation  in 
the  things  of  God  ?  The  only  answer  to  be  given  is 
contained  in  our  Lord's  promise  to  S.  Peter. 


Honorius  Declining  to  Define 


77 


CHAPTER  V. 

HONORIUS  DECLINING  TO  DEFINE. 

Mr.  Gore  ('  R.  C.  Claims,'  p.  loo)  claims  it  as  a '  fact '  that 
the  bishops  of  the  Sixth  General  Council  in  condemning  the 
Pope,  i.e.  Honorius,  showed  that  they  had  not  even  a  '  rudi- 
'  mentary  idea  of  the  papal  infallibility  '  and  he  argues,  that 
in  consideration  of  the  case  of  Liberius,  the  28th  canon  of 
Chalcedon,  and  the  history  of  Honorius,  the  '  belief  in 
'  the  universal  pastorate  and  the  doctrinal  infallibility  of  the 
'  Pope,  can  in  no  sense  be  described  as  part  of  the  Catholic 
'  faith.'  He  considers  that  he  has  '  demonstrated  '  this  ; 
and  Dr.  Pusey  considered  the  case  of  Honorius  fatal  to 
the  infallibility  of  the  Holy  See.    What  are  the  facts  ? 

Amongst  the  perfections  of  our  blessed  Lord,  is  that 
of  a  perfect  human  Will,  that  never  knew  perplexity  in  its 
designs,  nor  inconstancy  in  its  resolves  ;  firm,  tranquil, 
ready,  and  sensitive  to  the  faintest  indications  of  the 
Divine  Will ;  surpassing  the  will  of  angels,  for  they  once 
could,  but  He  never  could,  swerve  or  falter  in  complete 
and  prompt  obedience.  This  radical  impossibility  of 
error  was  due,  as  S.  Dionysius  teaches,  not  to  the  grace 
of  unction,  but  to  the  Hypostatic  union.  That  human 
Will,  intimately  adhering  to  the  Divine  Nature,  anointed 
with  the  unction  of  substantial  holiness,  was  personally 
set  in  motion,  directed,  and  governed  in  every  act, 
by  the  Word.  In  the  words  of  the  Sixth  General  Council, 
'  as  our  body  is  governed  and  adorned,  and  ordered  by 


78 


Hotwrius  Declining  to  Defi)ie 


'  our  intellectual  and  rational  soul,  so,  in  the  Man  Christ, 
'  His  entire  human  nature  was  always,  and  in  all  things 
'  moved  by  the  Divinity  of  the  Word,  as  the  instrument  of 
'  God.' 

And  it  is  an  essential  feature  of  the  economy  of  our 
redemption  that  there  should  be  a  created  will,  as  well  as 
a  Di\'ine,  in  the  one  Person  of  the  SaAiour,  for,  as  S. 
Maximus  says,  'that  which  is  not  assumed,  cannot  be 
'  healed.' 

But  further,  there  is  in  our  Lord's  human  Nature, 
what  is  sometimes  called  the  will  of  the  reason  and  the 
will  of  the  senses  ;  but  between  the  tsvo,  there  is  not,  and 
there  cannot  be,  contrariet)-.  In  the  Agony,  the  will  of 
the  senses  expressed  itself,  but  was  incapable  of  disobe- 
dience, for  it  was  not  wounded  by  the  fall,  and  it  was  the 
will  of  the  Eternal  Word.  There  was  no  triumph  of  one 
over  the  other,  for  there  was  no  rebellion,  no  faintest 
wish  that  it  might  be  othenvise.  In  a  word,  the  operation 
of  the  human  will  (with  its  two  departments)  is  distinct 
from  the  operation  of  the  Di^•ine  in  the  selfsame  Person 
of  the  Word,  but,  whilst  distinct,  incapable  of  contrariet)-. 

But  we  owe  the  tradition  of  this  fundamental  truth  of 
'  two  operations  '  in  the  Incarnate  Word  to  those  saintly 
bishops  who  occupied  the  See  of  Rome  during  the 
greater  part  of  the  seventh  centur)-.  From  Severinus, 
who  first  condemned  an  Imperial  edict,  which  favoured  the 
opposite  heresy  of  MonotheHsm,  to  S.  Leo  II.,  who  con- 
firmed the  acts  of  the  Sixth  General  Council,  Pope  after 
Pope  opposed  that  fascinating  heresy,  in  the  exercise  of 
their  supreme  guardianship  of  the  Faith.  One  Pope 
failed  at  the  commencement  of  the  struggle,  before  its 
significance  was  clearly  seen.  To  what  did  Honorius' 
failure  amount  ? 

Mr.  Gore  would  have  us  ignore  all  consideration  as  to 
Honorius'  personal  orthodoxy  and  as  to  whether  he  was 


Honoriiis  Declining  to  Define  79 


condemned  only  for  neglect.  He  dismisses  these  two 
contentions  with  a  lofty  wave  of  the  hand.  But  what,  if 
these  very  considerations  are  necessary  to  enable  us  to 
understand  what  the  Council  meant  by  what  it  said  of 
Honorius  ?  It  is  like  asking  us  to  agree  with  him  to  an 
ignoratio  elenchi.  He  ought  to  be  concerned  with  these, 
though  he  says  he  is  not  ;  and  he  ought  also  to  prove  and 
not  assume  that  a  Council  is  authoritative  except  so  far 
as  its  decrees  are  confirmed  by  the  Pope.  Failing  to  do 
this,  he  fails  altogether.  He  ought  to  have  taken  the 
infallibility  as  defined  by  the  Vatican  Council,  not  as 
imagined  by  himself ;  and  he  should  have  shown  that 
that  is  infringed  by  the  case  of  Honorius  ;  or  he  fights  with 
a  phantom.  There  must  be  some  instance  quoted  of 
Honorius  issuing  an  ex  cathedra  decree,  or  what  is  the 
use  of  speaking  of  '  the  papal  infallibility  '  being  contra- 
vened ?  But  the  history  of  Honorius,  we  shall  see,  not 
only  shows  no  contradiction  to  the  dogma  of  the  Papal 
Infallibility,  but  it  illustrates  with  special  emphasis  the 
belief  of  the  Church  in  that  which  Mr.  Gore  denies  on 
the  strength  of  that  very  history,  viz.  the  universal  pastor- 
ate of  the  Bishops  of  Rome,  and  their  unique  relationship 
to  the  guardianship  of  the  Faith.  For  if  there  is  one  fact 
that  stands  out  from  the  whole  history  of  the  Sixth  Council, 
it  is  surely  the  universal  acceptance  of  Papal  authority. 

A  heresy  touching  the  Incarnation  had  found  its  way 
into  the  Church,  viz.  Monothelism,  or  the  teaching  that  in 
Christ  there  was  but  one  Will. 

The  Emperor  dealt  first  with  Domnus,  the  Pope 
(676-8),  and  then  with  Agatho (678-82),  about  convening 
a  Council  (the  6th)  at  Constantinople,  under  the  presidency 
of  t/ie  legates  of  tlie  Apostolic  See. 

We  have  already  said  that  the  Popes  were  the  vigilant 
defenders  of  the  Faith  against  the  encroachments  of  this 
heresy.   After  Severinus,  John  IV.  opposed  the  Emperor, 


8o  Honor  ins  Declining  to  Defiyie 

with  his  Ecthesis.  Theodorus  deposed  the  heretical 
Eastern  prelates,  and  subscribed  the  document  con- 
demning Monothelism  with  a  pen  dipped  in  the  chalice. 
S.  Martin  incurred  the  Imperial  displeasure  in  the 
same  holy  cause.  Vitalian  was  conspicuous  for  his  zeal 
in  maintaining  the  dogma  ;  and  Domnus,  in  his  brief 
pontificate,  contributed  his  share  in  the  suppression  of 
the  heresy.  At  length  came  S.  Agatho,  so  famed  for  his 
sanctity  and  sweetness  ;  and  Pogonatus  ascended  the 
Imperial  throne,  fired  with  zeal  for  the  orthodox  faith. 
S.  Agatho  accordingly  held  a  preliminary  Synod  at 
Rome,  at  which  three  French  bishops  amongst  others 
were  present,  and  Theodorus  and  Sergius  were  com- 
missioned to  represent  the  Pope  at  the  forthcoming 
Council.  They  were  to  carry  with  them  two  letters,  in 
the  first  of  which  the  plainest  possible  statement  is  made 
concerning  the  inerrancy  of  the  Holy  See.  Nothing 
can  be  stronger  than  the  assertions  it  contains  on  this 
head.  It  also  says  :  'The  Lord  and  Saviour  of  all,  who 
'  promised  that  the  faith  of  Peter  should  not  fail,  ad- 
'  monished  him  to  strengthen  his  brethren,  which  it  is  well 
'  known  the  Apostolic  Pontiffs,  the  predecessors  of  my  low- 
'  liness,  have  ever faithfiiUy  done.'^  He  tells  the  Council 
that  his  legates  are  not  men  greatly  versed  in  the  science 
of  the  Scriptures,  nor  illustrious  in  eloquence  (perhaps  a  sly 
allusion  to  the  subtleties  of  the  heterodo.x  East),  but  that 
they  have  something  better,  viz.,  a  full  knowledge  of  '  the 
'  tradition  of  the  Apostolic  See,  as  it  has  been  maintained 
'  by  my  predecessors,  the  Apostolic  Pontiffs.' 

The  Council  assembled  at  Constantinople,  the  Papal 
legates  presiding.  These  letters  of  Agatho  were  read 
and  received  without  demur.-  The  Patriarch  of  Constan- 

'  This  was  more  than  forty  years  after  Honorius'  death. 
^  The  Sixth  Council  therefore  practically  set  its  seal  to  the 
principle  of  Papal  infallibility. 


Honorius  Declining  to  Define  8 1 

tinople,  who  had  wavered,  was  now  converted  to  the 
faith.  The  Patriarch  of  Antioch  proved  heretical  and 
was  deposed.  The  bishops  asked  that  the  testimonies 
of  the  Fathers  might  be  examined,  a  privilege  always 
accorded  by  the  Holy  See  to  bishops. 

In  the  twelfh  Act,  the  letter  of  Sergius,  Patriarch  of 
Constantinople,  to  Pope  Honorius,  which  was  full  of 
Monothelite  teaching,  was  read  ;  and  then  the  Pope's 
letter  to  Sergius.  There  was  nothing  heretical  in  the 
Pope's  letter  ;  but  he  had  wished  such  matters  not  to  be 
discussed,  instead  of  reproving  the  Patriarch.  And  he 
discountenanced  the  expression  '  two  energies  '  which  he 
applied  to  contrariant  wills  in  our  Lord's  human  nature  : 
whilst  really  Sergius  and  his  followers  were  using  it  of  the 
separate  natures  of  our  Blessed  Lord,  in  which  sense  it 
was  vital  truth.  In  fact,  he  had  shrunk  from  defining  : 
he  had  missed  an  opportunity  of  exercising  his  infallibility. 

In  the  thirteenth  Act  they  condemn  Sergius  and 
others,  as  heretics,  />ure  and  simple — and  then  they  add 
a  separate  sentence  about  Honorius,  in  which  they  say 
that  he  '  in  all  things  followed  the  wish  of  Sergius  and 
'  (so)  confirmed  his  impious  dogmas.' 

We  must  remember  that  Sergius  had  deceived 
Honorius  as  to  the  state  of  things,  and  so  got  his  way, 
inducing  Honorius  not  to  condemn  him,  under  false 
pretences. 

In  the  sixteenth  Act  they  shouted  anathema  to 
Honorius'  name. 

In  the  eighteenth,  in  an  address  to  the  Emperor,  after 
anathematising  the  rest,  they  add,  separately,  as  though 
there  were  some  distinction,  '  and  with  them  Honorius, 
'  \/ho  was  Ruler  of  Rome,  who  followed  them  in  these 
'  things,'  In  their  letter  to  Agatho,  they  advance  a 
step  further,  mixing  Honorius'  name  with  the  rest,  and 
say  that  they  have  destroyed  with  anathemas  Sergius, 


82 


Hvnorius  Declining  to  Define 


Honorius,  &c.  The  Emperor  says  in  his  edict  that 
certain  of  those  that  ruled  in  the  Church  '  contaminated 
'  the  Churches  with  contagion  of  this  sort,'  and  adds, 
'  besides  Honorius,  who  was  Pope  of  old  Rome,  the 
'  strengthener  of  this  kind  of  heresy ' ;  and  again  : 
^  Honorium  .  .  .  qui  fuit  antiquae  Romse  papa,  horum 
'  haereseos  in  omnibus  fautorem,  concursorem  atque  con- 
'■  firmatorem.' 

All  through,  the  stress  is  laid  on  some  sort  of  aid 
and  sanction  given  by  Honorius,  whether  direct  or 
indirect,  to  downright  heretics,  without  attributing  to 
him  any  personal  heterodoxy. 

Two  main  facts  have  here  to  be  borne  in  mind.  i. 
Honorius  issued  no  definition  to  teach  the  Church. 
His  letter  to  Sergius  was  kept  at  Constantinople  and 
brought  out  afterwards.  2.  The  Conciliar  decree  is 
only  of  value  so  far  as  it  is  accepted  and  confirmed  by 
the  Roman  pontiff. 

Now  Leo  n.,  a  pontiff  specially  remarkable  for  his 
holiness,  his  love  of  Holy  Scripture  and  of  the  poor,  in 
confirming  the  decrees  of  the  Council  (for  S.  Agatho  had 
died),  modified  this  particular  decree,  virtually  deciding 
that  Honorius  was  not  personally  heretical,  but  that  he 
did  not  repress  the  heresy  at  once,  as  became  the  occu- 
pant of  the  Holy  See.  He  failed  in  his  duty,  as  the 
Superior  of  Sergius,  the  Patriarch  of  Constantinople. 
So  that  Honorius'  endeavour  to  keep  things  quiet  was  a 
serious  dereliction  of  duty,  and  merited  censure,  but  only 
on  the  supposition  that  to  him  belonged  the  care  of  all 
the  Churches.  Accordingly  S.  Leo  IL  did  not  shrink 
from  condemning  Honorius  in  the  letter  which  he  wrote  to 
the  Emperor  to  confirm  the  decrees  of  the  Council.  He 
says :  '  We  anathematize  '  [and,  be  it  noted,  it  was  the  ac- 
cepted doctrine  all  round  that  all  the  anathemas  shouted 
out  by  the  prelates  against  the  Patriarch  of  Constantinople 


Honor  ins  Declining  to  Define  83 


and  Honorius  the  Pope  were  valueless  unless  confirmed 
by  the  reigning  Pope] — we  anathematize  Theodorus, 
'  &c.,  &c.,'and  then  separately:  'Honorius,  qui  hanc  ajjo- 
'  stolicam  ecclesiam  non  apostolicse  traditionis  doctrina 
'  lustravit,  sed  profana  proditione  immaculatam  maculari 
'  permisit.  dA.A.a  Trj  (SefSyjXm  7rpo8o(ria  ixiavdtjvai  acnriKov 
'  -irapexoiprja-e.'  The  present  Latin  text  is  incorrect,  whilst 
the  Greek  agrees  with  what  Leo  wrote  in  his  letter  to  King 
Erwig.  And,  in  his  letter  to  the  bishops  of  Spain,  Leo 
explains  the  case  of  Honorius  still  more  fully:  '  Qui  flam- 
'  mam  haeretici  dogmatis  non,  ut  decuit  apostolicam  auc- 
'  toritatem,  incipientem  extinxit,  sed  negligendo  confovit.' 
('  Who  did  not  at  once  put  out  the  flame  of  heretical 
'  teaching,  but  encouraged  it  through  his  neglect.') 

The  whole  point,  therefore,  of  Honorius'  condemna- 
tion lies  in  the  supposition  that  it  was  the  province  of  the 
Holy  See  to  guard  the  Faith  throughout  the  world. 

Looking,  then,  to  all  the  facts  of  the  case,  we  must 
conclude,  in  opposition  to  Mr.  Gore's  contention,  that  it 
cannot  be  proved  that  the  bishops  in  the  Council  meant 
to  brand  Honorius  with  personal  heresy,  and  that,  if  any 
of  them  meant  this,  their  wish  was  denied  them  by 
failure  of  confirmation  on  the  part  of  Leo  H.  Li  point 
of  fact,  the  term  '  heretic  '  in  those  times  was  not  so 
determined  as  afterwards  in  canon  law.  It  had  a  wider 
meaning,  and  a  Roman  pontiff,  who  did  not  at  once  detect 
a  heresy  and  insist  on  a  Patriarch  of  Constantinople 
submitting  to  withdraw  an  heretical  letter,  would,  if  the 
heresy  it  contained  afterwards  grew  in  the  Church  be 
considered  sufificiently  remiss  in  his  duty  to  be  stamped 
with  the  name  of  heretic. 

The  case,  then,  stands  thus  :  That  Monothelism  was 
extruded  from  the  Church  by  the  aid  of  the  Holy  See 
and  its  saintly  occupants  during  the  .seventh  century,  is 
matter  of  unquestioned  history.    But  one  occupant  of 

(i  2 


84 


Honor  ins  Declining  to  Define 


that  See  stained  his  otherwise  glorious  pontificate  by 
endeavouring  to  keep  the  peace,  taking  too  kindly  a 
view  of  the  Patriarch  of  Constantinople,  who  had  led 
him  into  a  trap  by  most  unworthy  devices.  This  is  a 
fact  which  led  to  his  condemnation.  But  it  is  one  which 
brings  out  nothing  so  clearly  as  the  universal  pastorate  of 
the  See  of  Rome  and  its  unique  responsibility  towards 
the  Faith. 

And  one  must  not  overlook  the  supposition  that  the 
passionate  vehemence  with  which  those  Oriental  prelates 
shouted  their  anathemas  possibly  had  a  very  human 
motive.  It  was  doubtless  a  consolation  to  them  that, 
whilst  so  many  of  their  own  number,  Patriarchs  and 
Metropolitans,  were  tainted  with  heresy,  they  could  add 
at  least  this  extenuating  circumstance,  viz.  that  their 
senior  Patriarch  (Sergius)  had  been  encouraged  by  a 
failure  of  duty  on  the  part  of  the  Apostolic  See  through 
its  not  nipping  the  heresy  in  the  bud.  Their  case 
amounted  to  this  :  '  No  doubt  Sergius  was  a  heretic. 
'  But  why  did  not  Honorius  check  him  ?  Let  us  condemn 
'  them  both.    Anathema  !  anathema  I ' 

And  they  were  right.  But  what  is  the  moral  of  the 
history  as  a  whole  ?  That  the  tolerance  of  heresy  is  the 
worst  of  conceivable  ills,  and  that  keenness  of  perception 
and  zeal  in  the  destruction  of  heresy  is  the  first  duty  of  a 
bishop.  It  is  dangerous  ground  for  an  Anglican  to  tread, 
and  Mr.  Gore  has  warned  us  off  it,  and  says  he  will  not 
tread  it.  '  We  are  not  concerned  at  present  with  these 
'  contentions'  (p.  loo).  And  yet  the  case  cannot  be  fairly 
judged  on  any  other  ground.  It  is,  I  say,  dangerous 
ground  for  an  Anglican  to  tread,  for  300  years  of  in 
difference  to  heresy  in  a  great  portion  of  the  Christian 
Revelation  would,  were  there  no  other  grounds  of  con- 
demnation, be  fatal  to  the  Anglican  claim  to  be  part  of 
the  Catholic  Church.    When  the  Easterns  pleaded  on 


Ho)iorius  Declining  to  Define  85 


behalf  of  Acacius,  their  Patriarch,  that  he  was  uot 
personally  heretical,  but  had  only  connived  at  heresy, 
the  Roman  Pontiff  replied  :  '  Error  cui  non  resistitur 
'  approbatur,  et  Veritas  cum  minime  defensatur  oppri- 
*  mitur.'  ('Not  to  resist  error  is  to  sanction  it,  and  not  to 
'  defend  truth  is  to  destroy  it.')  Accordingly  his  name 
was  erased  from  the  diptychs.  The  same  measure  of 
justice  was  dealt  to  Honorius  for  his  remissness  m  dealing 
with  a  rising  trouble,  which  he  had  hoped  might  die  a 
natural  death.  Few  things  are  more  beautiful  in  history 
than  the  majestic  calmness  with  which  Leo  II.  corrected 
the  intemperate  language  of  the  Council,  but  at  the  same 
time  condemned  his  predecessor  for  not  acting  as  the 
supreme  guardian  of  the  Christian  Faith.  Subsequent 
Councils  and  Pontiffs  joined  in  S.  Leo's  condemnation, 
but  in  his  only,  not  in  the  language  of  the  excited 
bishops.  Hadrian  II.  expressly  alludes  to  this  fact,  and 
the  Roman  Breviary  echoed  the  condemnation  until,  men 
perversely  misunderstanding  that  condemnation,  its  men- 
tion was  in  charity  removed. 

But,  in  spite  of  Honorius'  neglect  in  this  part  of  his 
duty,  we  owe  him  a  debt  of  gratitude  in  other  respects. 
We  English  owe  him  much  :  he  it  was  who  did  so  much 
for  the  churches  of  Great  Britain.  The  city  of  Rome, 
too,  owed  much  of  its  splendour  to  his  care.  He  was, 
says  a  contemporary  writer,  '  sagacious  of  mind,  vigorous 
'  in  judgment,  clear  in  doctrine,  abounding  in  sweetness 
'  and  humility.'  S.  Maximus  calls  him  'great  Honorius,' 
and  the  Roman  clergy  described  his  virtues  in  a  remark- 
able epitaph. 

One  thing,  then,  Honorius  never  did — he  never 
taught  the  Church  anything  heretical.  One  failure  he 
certainly  showed— a  failure  in  detecting  an  Eastern 
Patriarch's  wiles,  and  sternly  reprimanding  an  incipient 
heresy.     He  had  already  gone  to  his  Judge  when 


86 


Honor  ins  DccU)ivig  fo  Define 


his  cause  was  decided,  leaving  the  memory  of  an 
illustrious  reign,  which  was  the  paramount  thought 
of  his  contemporaries.  But  this  estimate  of  his  reign 
was,  as  we  have  seen,  afterwards  revoked  by  posterity, 
on  the  ground  of  'negligence'  in  the  primary  duty  of  the 
Universal  Pastor  of  the  Church.  Had  he  been  more 
diligent  he  must  have  seen  that  the  heretics  were  not 
using  the  phrase  '  two  operations '  of  contrariant  wills 
in  our  Lord's  Human  Nature,  as  he  seems  to  have 
fancied,  but  of  the  two  natures  in  His  Divine  Person, 
in  denying  which  they  denied  the  Faith. 

The  result,  then,  of  our  investigation  is,  that  neither 
the  history  of  Liberius,  either  signing  a  harmless  document 
or  having  signed  none  at  all  ;  nor  the  abortive  effort  of 
some  of  the  Oriental  bishops  to  get  a  canon  passed  in 
f;ivour  of  Constantinople,  to  the  detriment  of  Alexandria 
and  Antioch  ;  nor  the  case  of  Honorius,  failing  to  rise 
to  the  tremendous  responsibilities  of  the  Supreme 
Guardian  of  the  Faith,  afford  any  support  to  the  Anglican 
theory,  as  explained  by  Mr.  Gore. 

On  the  contrary,  a  Council  that  accepted  Agatho's 
letters,  asserting  the  inerrancy  of  the  Holy  See,  cannot 
be  supposed  to  have  stultified  itself  by  condemning  a 
previous  occupant  for  official  heresy.  It  was,  on  the 
other  hand,  natural  that,  accepting  the  truth  of  the 
infallibility  of  that  See  in  its  formal  teaching  on  matters 
of  faith,  it  should  press  the  condemnation  of  one  who, 
whilst  not  formally  teaching  anything  heterodox,  had  yet 
failed  to  exercise  his  prerogative  of  Universal  Pastor,  by 
not  dealing  summarily  with  an  offender — even  though 
that  offender  was  the  Patriarch  of  Constantinople. 

It  is  instructive  to  notice  that  Dr.  Dollinger,  who  has 
gone  counter  to  other  historians,  of  equal  weight,  in  this 
matter  of  Honorius,  should  have  himself  exhibited  theo- 
logical error  on  the  particular  doctrine  which  Honorius 


Honoriiis  Declining  to  Define 


ought  to  have  driven  out  of  the  Church,  and  which  his 
successors  did.  He  has  a  passage  on  the  Agony  of  our 
Lord,  the  crucial  test  of  orthodoxy  on  this  matter,  which 
would  have  sent  a  thrill  of  horror  through  Honorius,  '  F!r'<t  Age 

°  '    of  C'hri>ti- 

and  for  which  he  would  have  been   stigmatised  by  am'y.'  Ei.g. 

1  rans.  vol.  i. 

S.  Leo  IL  as  teaching  heresy,  p.  54. 


88     Alexander  VI.,  the  Political  Ecclesiastic 


CHAPTER  VI. 

ALEXANDER  VI.,   THE  POLITICAL  ECCLESIASTIC. 

Few  names  have  figured  more  frequently  in  the  controversy 
between  Rome  and  Anghcanism  than  that  of  Alexander 
VI.  It  is  a  name  with  which  the  Anglican  conjures. 
Can  you  believe  the  successors  of  S.  Peter  to  be  infallible 
in  their  teaching  office,  when  there  is  a  Roderigo  Borgia 
amongst  them  ? 

The  first  private  letter  that  I  received  from  England 
after  my  reception  into  the  Church  contained  his  name. 
When  in  a  pamphlet  I  spoke  of  Barlow's  character,  to 
show  that  he  might  be  supposed  capable  of  going  through 
the  cerem.ony  of  consecration  without  having  been 
himself  consecrated,  Mr.  Gore  replied  by  alluding  to 
Alexander  VI.,  asking  whether  he  should  give  a  life  of 
'Remarks  that  Popc,  for,  he  said,  'it  would  be  as  much  to  the 
p"9.  '  '  point.'  Of  course,  it  would  not  have  been  at  all  to  the 
point,  for  Alexander  did  not  start  the  Papacy,  whereas 
Barlow  did,  according  to  the  argument,  start  the  new 
succession.  But  the  name  of  Alexander  VI.  was 
sufficient  to  delight  the  '  Church  Times,'  which  specially 
drew  the  attention  of  its  readers  to  the  '  neatness '  of  the 
reply.  Yes,  Alexander  VI. ! — it  is  to  some  minds  a  sufficient 
answer  to  all  the  evidences  for  the  Divine  institution  of 
the  Papacy. 

A  recent  writer,  Mr.  Woodhouse,  has  said,  '  Let  it  be 
'  granted  that  Christ  deputed  His  authority  to  Peter.  Let 


Alexander  VI.,  tJic  Political  Ecclesiastic  89 


'  it  be  allowed  that  the  earlier  Bishops  of  Rome  were  the 
'  successors  of  S.  Peter,  possessing  all  the  rights  and 
'  privileges  with  which  he  is  said  to  have  been  entrusted. 
'  What  then  ?  ' 

His  answer  is  that  '  the  intention  of  Christ '  has  been 
'  frustrated  by  man's  wickedness,  and  the  charter  of  the 
'  Papacy  has  been  torn  and  cancelled.'  And  Dr.  Littledale, 
in  ridiculous  ignorance  of  the  Church's  teaching  on  the 
whole  subject,  ends  his  list  of  the  Popes  with  Alexander 
VI.,  or  rather  with  his  predecessor. ' 

It  is  a  fact,  however,  that  the  history  of  Alexander 
VI.  had  indirectly  something  to  do  with  my  own  con- 
version. 

At  the  same  time  that  my  confidence  in  Dr.  Pusey's 
accuracy  received  a  rude  shock  (see  p.  186),  I  had  the 
opportunity  of  perusing  a  letter  written  to  a  friend  of 
mine  under  the  following  circumstances.  My  friend,  an 
English  clergyman,  had  grave  doubts  about  his  position, 
and  he  applied  for  assistance  to  one  who  holds  a  fore- 
most place  amongst  English  Churchmen  for  learning  and 
eloquence  ;  he  was  one  to  whom  I  have  myself  looked  up 
through  life  with  the  greatest  admiration.  My  friend 
had  spoken,  amongst  other  difficulties,  of  the  following. 
'  Can  one  honestly  work  in  the  Church  of  England  while 
'  not  assenting  to  those  articles  which  treat  of  the  Seven 
'  Sacraments,  Purgatory,  and  General  Councils,  and  while 
'  disbelieving  Homily  which  says,  that  "the  whole  of 
'  "  Christendom  prior  to  the  Reformation  was  steeped  in 
'  "damnable  idolatry  for  800  years,"  &c. ?' 

The  reply  of  the  divine,  who  is  certainly  one  of  the 
greatest  ornaments  of  the  Church  of  England,  was  as 
follows  : — 

'  As  for  the  sentence  from  the  Homily  which  you 

'  See  Rev.  P.  Dichamp  on  Has  there  been  a  disappearance  of  the 
Papacy]  Art  and  Book  Company,  Leamington,  id. 


90     Alexander  JV.,  tJie  Political  Ecclesiastic 


'  quote,  it  is  an  instance  of  the  passion  and  exaggeration 
'  which  were  natural,  though  not  therefore  admirable,  at  a' 
'  period  such  as  that  of  the  Reformation.  Unless  it  is  to 
'  be  said  that  we  are  bound  to  subscribe  to  ever)-  proposi- 
'  tion  in  the  Homilies,  because  we  say  that  their  general 
'  teaching  was  useful  in  the  times  when  they  were  written, 
'  there  can  be  no  reason  for  discomfort  on  the  score  of 
'  such  a  saying.  For  my  own  part  I  do  not  hesitate  to  say 
'  that  there  are  many  other  propositions  in  the  Homilies 
'  which  I  do  not  agree  to  ;  and  this,  I  apprehend,  would 

*  be  the  case  with  the  great  majority  of  the  clerg}-.  A 
'  series  of  highly  rhetorical  discourses  cannot  be  turned 
'  into  a  test  of  theological  truth  or  error.' 

I  merely  stop,  for  a  moment,  to  point  out  what  a 
false  conscience  has  been  formed  on  such  matters  by 
members  of  the  English  Church.  If  there  was  any  book 
I  thoroughly  detested,  it  was  this  book  of  Homilies.  It 
contradicted  most  of  my  teaching,  and  that  of  those 
with  whom  I  worked.  Yet  I  signed  an  Article,  giving  my 
assent  and  consent  to  it,  which  declared  that  this  same 
book  '  doth  contain  a  godly  and  wholesome  doctrine,  and 
'  necessary  for  these  times,  as  doth  the  former  book  of 
'  Homilies,  which  were  set  forth  in  the  time  of  Edward 
'  the  Sixth ;  and  therefore  we  judge  them  to  be  read  in 

*  churches  by  the  ministers,  diligently  and  distinctly,  that 
'  they  may  be  understanded  of  the  people.'  (Article 
XXXV.) 

If  asked  what  I  meant  by  saying  that  I  assented  and 
consented  to  that  Article,  I  should  have  replied  that  you 
might  find  some  truth  in  the  book  of  Homilies  mixed 
with  a  vast  amount  of  error  and  falsehood.  If  asked 
whether  I  could  ever  have  read  these  Homilies  from  the 
pulpit,  I  should  have  been  obliged  to  reply,  '  Not  for  the 
'  world  ! '  And  yet  they  were  witten  for  that  purpose,  and 
the  framers  of  the  Article  unquestionably  contemplated 


Alexander  V/.,  tJie  Political  Ecclesiastic  91 

the  advisability  of  such  an  use  of  the  Homilies.  I  held 
that,  though  they  were  not  true,  they  did  very  virell  for 
that  period,  when  so  little  truth  was  held.  Of  course,  I 
look  with  abhorrence  on  such  special  pleading  now,  and 
wonder  how  I  could  ever  have  rested  content  with  such 
a  defence.  But  it  was  a  necessity  of  our  position.  We 
were  not  really  teaching  the  same  as  they  taught  in 
the  early  days  of  the  so-called  Reformation.  We  were 
undoing  a  great  part  of  that  work.  And  yet  if  I  had 
refused  to  sign  the  Articles,  which  I  always  detested  from 
the  bottom  of  my  heart,  I  could  not  have  held  any 
position  in  the  Church  of  England. 
But  the  writer  continues  : — • 

'  At  the  same  time,  in  order  to  understand  the 
'  language  of  the  Homily,  you  should  read  for  yourself 
'  something  about  the  state  of  profound  corruption  which 
'  provoked  it,  and  which  explains,  if  it  does  not  justify,  ex- 
'  aggeration.  Read,  f.^.,  Burchard's  "Diarium."  Burchard 
'  was  master  of  the  Apostolical  Palace,  and  a  Bishop.  His 
'  account  of  Alexander  VI.  is  not  really  open  to  question 
'  on  the  score  of  accuracy.  He  had  no  motive  for  speak- 
'  ing  ill  of  the  Pope,  and  kept  his  diary  for  his  own  eye. 
'If  the  "Vicar  of  Christ"  was  such  as  he  describes, 
'  who  can  wonder  at  what  happened  in  the  century  which 
'  succeeded  ? ' 

Alexander  VI.  again  !  But  there  is  this  advantage  in 
the  above  writer's  statements,  that  he  gives  his  authority. 

Now  let  us  remember  that  this  is  a  defence  given  by 
the  person  to  whom,  of  all  others,  many  of  us  have  been 
most  inclined  to  listen  in  the  Church  of  England.  And 
it  is  written  to  enable  a  clergyman,  a  teacher  of  truth,  to 
remain  where  he  was.  It  fell  like  a  bombshell  amongst 
the  defences  I  had  heaped  up  in  my  own  mind. 

I  asked  myself,  did  the  lives  of  some  of  the  High 
Priests  of  Israel  nullify  the  Divine  institution  ?  Could  the 


92      Alexander  VL,  the  Political  Ecclesiastic 


life  of  Alexander  explain  the  language  of  the  Article  about 
the  books  of  Homilies  containing  this  monstrous  assertion 
(to  be  'diligently  and  distinctly  read  to  the  people ')  that 
'the  whole  of  Christendom  prior  to  the  Reformation  was 
steeped  in  damnable  idolatry  for  800  years  ?  '  Could  the 
life  of  Alexander  VI.  'explain  '  Cranmer  or  Henry  VIII.  ? 
Did  they  even  refer  to  it,  or  think  of  it  ?  Is  it  not  the 
SeeFroude's  fact  that  the  entire  Episcopate  of  England,  fully  half  a 
EiiR.  \i.  century  after  the  death  of  Alexa?ider  VI.,  declared  before 
'^^  God  and  tnan  that  the  Bishop  of  Rome  ivas  the  successor 
of  S.  Peter,  and  as  such,  the  Divinely  appointed  Head  of 
the  Church  under  Christ  ?  Did  they  not  beg  that  they 
might  be  allowed  to  pay  him  obedience  as  such?  and  did 
they  not  undergo  prison,  and  exile,  and  death  rather  than 
renounce  their  allegiance  to  one  who  they  were  sure  was 
their  Lord,  under  the  Divine  Head  of  the  Church  ? 

Is  it  possible  that  Cranmer,  whose  life  was  at  times 
hardly  more  exemplary  than  Alexander  VI. 's,  had  his 
faith  in  the  least  shaken  by  the  life  of  that  Pontiff  or  of 
any  others?  Nay,  did  not  Henry  VIII.  himself  write  a 
most  able  defence  of  the  Papacy  fourteen  years  after  the 
death  of  Alexander,  and  appeal  to  the  common  sense  of 
mankind  as  to  whether  such  an  institution  as  the  Papacy 
could  have  imposed  itself  on  the  world,  if  not  backed  by 
a  Divine  promise,  and  assistance  ? 

Still,  Alexander  lived,  and  his  life  is  a  greater  difficulty 
to  some  people  now  than  it  was  to  his  own  generation. 
When  Savonarola  was  inhibited  from  preaching,  he  could 
storm  against  the  occupant  of  the  Holy  See,  listening  to 
the  inventiveness  of  Florentine  calumny;  but  he  did  not 
venture  to  deny  the  Divine  character  of  the  institution 
itself.  When  Charles  VIII.  wanted  to  further  his  am- 
bitious schemes,  he  could  ignore  his  own  lascivious  life, 
and,  bad  as  he  was,  accuse  his  political  adversary,  seated 
on  the  throne  of  S.  Peter,  of  simony  and  worldliness. 


Alexander  VI.,  the  Political  Ecclesiastic  93 


But  it  remains  true,  that  Alexander  the  Sixth's  reign  by 
no  means  conduced  towards  the  idea  that  the  Holy  See 
was  not  the  Divinely  appointed  centre  of  unity,  and  the 
source  of  spiritual  jurisdiction,  to  the  extent  that  some  ners  'Sixte 

r  ^  V.  Intro- 

people  imagine.    Men  knew  well  enough  that,  as  amongst  duction,  iv. 

High  Priests  there  could  be  a  Caiaphas,  and  amongst 

Apostles  a  Judas,  so  amongst  Popes  there  could  be  worse 

even  than  a  Roderigo  Borgia,  and  yet  the  institution 

remain  Divine. 

But  was  Alexander  VI.  what  he  is  so  often  imagined 

to  have  been  ?  What  is  the  value  of  Burchard's  '  Diarium  ' 

which  is  so  much  relied  upon  ?    And  what  is  its  actual 

testimony?    I  can  claim  some  acquaintance  with  this 

diary,  as  edited  by  Thuasne,  massive  as  the  volumes 

are. 

The  writer  of  the  above  letter  somewhat  confuses 
matters  by  calling  Burchard  '  Master  of  the  Apostolic 
'  Palace,  and  a  Bishop.'  At  the  time  he  wrote  his  diary, 
or  such  parts  of  it  as  he  did  write,  he  was  '  Master  of  the 
'  Ceremonies  ' — quite  an  external  office,  which  did  not 
admit  him  to  close  intimacy  with  the  Pope  in  his  daily 
life.  Consequently  little  as  one  would  imagine  it  from 
the  above  writer's  statement,  the  observations  on  the 
Pope's  private  life  in  his  diary  are  rare.  If  one  were  to 
take  Burchard's  'Diarium'  as  a  full  account  of  Alexander 
VI.  one  would  have  to  suppose  the  Pope  to  have  been 
occupied  with  hardly  anything  but  Masses  and  State 
ceremonies,  for  Burchard  was  not  an  eye-witness  of  any- 
thing else.'  The  two  or  three  glimpses  into  Alexander's 
private  life  are  not  those  of  an  eye-witness.  Burchard 
was  not  a  bishop  during  Alexander's  lifetime  ;  and, 
according  to  his  successor  in  the  office  he  held,  he  was 

'  '  Sa  fonction  I'appelait  a  la  sacristie  et  4  la  chapelle  pontifi- 
'  cale.  .  .  .  Personne  ne  lui  attribue  une  fonction  d'antichanibre.' 
Mons.  J.  Fave. 


94     Alexander  VI.,  the  Political  Ecclesiastic 

'  supra  omnes  bestias  bestialissimus '  ('  more  bestial  than  all 
'  beasts.')  This,  of  course,  may  be  exaggeration,  although 
it  is  the  witness  of  one  who  was  first  his  colleague,  and 
afterwards  his  successor  in  office.  It  is  hard  to  know 
what  to  believe  of  that  age  of  hes.  Burchard  appears, 
from  his  diarj',  to  have  been  nothing  worse  than  an 
enipt)--headed,  conceited  man,  and  probably  not  of  the 
most  refined  character.  His  successor  calls  him  in- 
humanissimus — most  unlike  a  man,  and  considers  his 
diary  utterly  unworthy  of  credit,  even  in  the  ceremonial 
part,  of  which  he  was  an  eye-witness.  If  Burchard  could 
not  be  trusted  on  that,  one  feels  it  would  be  difficult  to 
trust  him  on  anything  else,  and  that  there  may  be  some- 
thing in  his  successor's  remarks,  that  the  diary  had  better 
have  been  committed  to  the  flames,  on  the  score  of  in- 
accurac}-. 

And  have  we  the  diar)-  itself? 
See  Leo-  The  Original  ]SIS.  has  not  yet  been  discovered.  The 

earliest  copy,  confessedly  only  a  cop)',  was  first  published 
and  M.  "  200  ycars  after  Burchard's  death.  Leibnitz  had  only 
'Notfce^io-  Latin  and  French  morsels.  Eccard  claimed  to  have 
p.Ti^"*"^  published  the  whole  diar)-  from  a  Berlin  manuscript, 
and  confessed  that  it  was  defective.  There  are  six  dif- 
ferent and  contradictor)'  copies  of  the  diar)'  in  the 
Vatican,  and  the  chief  manuscript,  on  which  M.  Thuasne 
relies  so  much,  does  not  resemble  any  of  them  in  style 
or  facts.  WTiere  is  the  original  ?  Was  it  penned  wholly 
in  Italian,  as  Bayle  surmised,  or  wholly  in  Latin,  or 
partly  in  French,  Italian,  and  Latin,  but  never  in 
German,  Burchard's  mother-tongue  ?  Whoever  wrote  it, 
wrote  some  of  it  long  after  the  events  happened.  Once 
he  says,  '  Rescripsi  diu  post  rem  gestam.'  It  is,  by  the 
admission  of  Thuasne  himself,  interpolated  ;  and  I  regret 
to  say  that  the  marks  of  interpolation  are  so  minute  that 
I  have  caught  myself  reading  as  Burchard's  what  is  not 


Alexander  VI.,  the  Political  Ecclesiastic  95 


his,  without  noticing  the  tiny  bracket,  some  pages  before, 
indicating  the  interpolation. 

To  what,  then,  does  Burchard's  witness  amount  ? 

In  the  first  place  he  is  no  witness  to  the  supposed 
simony  of  Alexander's  election.  The  opening  portion  of 
his  second  volume,  in  which  the  account  occurs,  is  an  ad- 
mitted interpolation,  and  from  Infessura,  a  most  untrust- 
worthy source,  according  to  Professor  Creighton. 

In  the  second  place,  the  glimpses  of  the  Pope's  private 
life  are  rare  ;  and  it  is  precisely  in  these  that  we  find 
such  expressions  as  'they  say  it  is  reported,'  'if  what 
'  they  say  is  true.'  And  we  know  what  Italian  gossip  at 
that  period  meant,  even  from  so  poetical  a  writer  as  Mr. 
Symonds. 

In  the  third  place,  what  are  the  two  or  three  passages 
which  are  most  compromising  to  the  Pope  ? 

One  of  them  consists  in  what  a  Cardinal  taxed  the 
Pope  with  being  and  doing,  on  the  occasion  of  his  re- 
conciliation to  him,  which  looks  as  if  the  Pope  treated 
such  rumours  with  disdain.  At  the  end,  Burchard  tells 
us  he  cannot  vouch  for  the  truth  of  this. 

Another  consists  of  an  account  of  a  night's  orgie  in 
Caesar  Borgia's  rooms,  at  which  Burchard  says  the  Pope 
and  Lucretia  were  both  present.  And  the  third  is  a 
scene  in  the  Piazza,  which  the  same  personages  are  said 
to  have  gazed  at  in  amused  curiosity. 

Now  with  regard  to  the  orgies  on  one  particular  night 
— the  only  occasion— the  description  simply  baffles 
belief  I  have  no  h  sitation  in  saying,  '  Believe  it  who 
'  can.'  Burchard  does  not  profess  to  have  been  an  ej  e- 
witness.  The  Pope  was  not  well  at  the  time,  and  obliged 
to  keep  his  room,  and  to  absent  himself  from  his  usual 
duties  so  punctiliously,  so  unvaryingly  performed  through 
his  whole  pontificate.  That  any  amount  of  hideous  orgies 
might  go  on  in  Caesar  Borgia's  rooms  is  perhaps  credible 


g6     Alexander  VI.,  the  Political  Ecclesiastic 


enough,  but  that  Alexander  and  Lucretia  were  present, 
in  any  compromising  way,  requires  more  evidence  than 
we  have.  Moreover  the  '  confirmation '  that  M.  Thuasne 
offers  is  most  suspicious.  Of  the  two  '  confirmatory  '  ac- 
counts to  which  he  refers,  in  one  the  fifty  '  courtesans ' 
are  fifty  '  ladies  of  the  court,'  and  in  the  other,  the  pith 
of  the  revels  is  reduced  to  dancing  and  laughter.  On 
another  head,  Burchard  exhibits  an  entire  ignorance  of 
the  accusations  levelled  against  the  Pope,  viz.  in  connec- 
tion with  Peroto,  whose  death  he  describes,  but  with  no 
allusion  to  its  connection  with  Alexander. 

The  real  way,  indeed,  to  estimate  Burchard's  witness 
is  to  read  through  his  diary  page  by  page,  in  spite  of  its 
monotony,  and  to  see  what  idea  one  gathers  of  his 
master  on  the  whole.  One  of  the  most  damning  passages 
is  an  interpolation,  which  therefore  ought  not  to  have 
been  published  even  in  brackets,  and  those  to  which 
I  have  alluded  come  in  with  startling  abruptness,  are 
incredible  in  themselves,  and  are  not  confirmed  by  any 
trustworthy  evidence.  The  mass  of  Burchard's  diary 
shows  Alexander's  life  to  have  been  one  of  industry,  and 
care  at  least  as  to  his  public  devotions. 

And  yet  it  is  on  this  diary  that  most  of  the  accusa- 
tions against  Alexander  have  been  grounded. 

And  now  if  we  step  beyond  this  diary,  of  which  the 
original  is  not  to  be  found,  and  in  which  there  are 
unquestioned  interpolations,  who  is  the  next  greatest 
authority  for  all  that  we  know  about  this  Pope  ? 
Guicciardini. 

Guicciardini's  history  is  the  source  whence  most  writers 
(including  even,  in  too  great  measure.  Professor  Creighton, 
in  his  '  History  of  the  Papacy ')  have  drawn  their  informa- 
la  tion  And  yet  even  Voltaire  boiled  with  indignation  at 
Guicciardini's  bad  faith.  He  addressed  him  thus  : 
'  J  'ose  dire  a  Guichardin  :  L'Europe  est  trompee  par 


Alexander  VI.,  the  Political  Ecclesiastic  97 


*vous,  et  vous  I'avez  ete  par  votre  passion.  Vous  etiez 
M'ennemi  du  pape;  vous  avez  trop  cm  votre  haine.' 
This  is  Voltaire's  estimate  of  Guicciardini's  account  of 
Alexander's  death.  The  '  rehabilitation  '  of  Alexander 
would  be  a  wild  and  worthless  task,  which  no  Catholic 
would  attempt  ;  it  is  not  required  by  any  exigencies  of 
Catholic  controversy.  But  we  are  bound  to  be  just  even 
to  a  Borgia.  Guicciardini  seems  quite  to  lose  his  balance 
over  the  Popes.  He  even  treats  as  bastards  the  children 
of  Innocent  VIII.,  born  to  him  in  wedlock  before  he 
took  Holy  Orders.  Indeed  such  were  his  own  fears  as 
to  the  real  character  of  his  writings,  that  on  his  death-bed 
he  said  to  a  notary,  '  Let  them  burn  my  History  of  Italy.' 
The  work  was  then  only  in  manuscrijit. 

And  yet  without  Burchard  and  without  Guicciardini, 
where  would  be  all  our  modern  history  of  Alexander  VI.  ? 

There  remains  Jorry,  of  whom  Bayle  says  in  his  dic- 
tionary that,  '  selon  Vossius,  il  avait  monte  une  espfece 

*  de  banque  et  promis  une  ancienne  genealogie  et  une 
'  gloire  immortelle  a  tous  les  faquins  qui  paieraient  bien 
'  son  travail,  et  il  dechirait  tous  ceux  qui  n'achetaient  pas 
'  ses  mensonges.' 

Tomaso  Tomasi  is  equally  unreliable.  He  set  to  work 
to  blacken  the  Pope,  and  he  succeeded.    For  '  there  is 

*  an  immortality  in  mendacity,  which  even  chivalry  cannot 
'  vanquish.' 

With  regard  to  Guicciardini,  we  have  to  remember 
that  he  was  a  child  at  Florence  during  Alexander's  pon- 
tificate, and  that  he  was  for  two  years  ambassador  at 
the  court  of  the  Pope's  supreme  enemy,  Ferdinand  of 
Naples. 

And  surely  some  things  are  beyond  belief  even  for  that 
age.    They  are  not  so  much  difficulties  to  a  Catholic,  as  cf.  Voitaire, 

1  1   •!  1  rr-it  1  r  ■  1    •    1        Xxiv.  91 

to  the  philosopher.  There  are  degrees  of  enormity  which  (iSoi). 
I  conceive  could  not  have  been  so  calmly  tolerated  even 

H 


gS    Alexander  IV.,  the  Political  Ecclesiastic 


Ro^coe's 
'  Life  of  Leo 
X.'  Diss,  on 
Lucretia,  of 
which  the 
follow-ing  is 
a  risume. 


in  that  corrupt  age,  in  the  occupant  of  the  Holy  See.  If 
Lucretia  had  really  been  what  she  was  painted  by  Alex- 
anders Florentine  foes — if  her  relations  with  him,  to 
say  nothing  of  her  relations  with  others,  had  really  been 
what  Guicciardini  and  Burlamacchi  and  others  made 
them  out  to  be,  is  it  conceivable  that,  even  in  those 
degenerate  days,  the  citizens  of  Rome  would  have  en- 
dured to  be  under  her  government,  during  Alexander "s 
absence  ? 

Lucretia  was  a  woman  certainly  of  remarkable  power, 
and  probably  of  unsullied  virtue.  Roscoe  has  successfully 
vindicated  her  honour  from  the  foul  calumnies  with  which 
it  has  been  aspersed.  As  Roscoe  points  out,  Guicciardini 
seems  to  have  been  acquainted  with  the  Neapolitan  poets, 
who  are  probably  the  real  source  of  all  the  horrible 
aspersions  on  her  character.  A  Neapolitan  poet  at  the 
beginning  of  the  sixteenth  centun,-,  with  an  aim — will 
account  for  anything.  And  Guicciardini,  the  friend  of 
Ferdinand  of  Naples,  the  Pope's  bitterest  foe,  was  equal  to 
retailing  their  unblushing  falsehoods.  Had  .Alexander  VI. 
not  taken  the  active  part  he  did  in  expeUing  the  house  ot 
Aragon,  the  Neapolitan  poets  would  have  had  no  cause 
for  their  exasperation,  and  Lucretia  would  never  have 
been  handed  down  as  the  Messahna  of  the  Renaissance. 
According  to  Guicciardini,  the  Pope  dissolved  the  mar- 
riage with  Giovanni  Sforza,  'not  being  able  to  bear  a 
*  rival ' ;  but  he  ignores  the  significance  of  the  fact,  that 
the  Pope  proceeded  at  once  to  many-  her  to  some  one 
else.  Even  the  attention  paid  to  Lucretia's  child  is  sug- 
gestive to  Guicciardini's  foul  mind.  One  charge  con- 
nected with  this  child  happens  to  be  refuted  indirectly 
by  Burchard.  Guicciardini  attributes  the  death  ot 
Lucretia's  husband  to  Caesar  Borgia,  with  no  foundation 
for  his  statement  of  any  kind.  Any  affection,  however 
virtuous  in  others,  any  death  that  occiu-s,  is  material  for 


Alexander  VI.,  the  Political  Ecclesiastic  99 


Ihis  '  historian's  '  blackening  pen.  It  is  to  be  noticed  that, 
so  far  as  Burchard's  diary  is  concerned,  this  portion  of 
Guicciardini's  allegation  receives  no  kind  of  support. 
There  is  not  the  most  distant  insinuation  in  that  diary  of 
the  life  attributed  to  Lucretia  by  Guicciardini.  And  yet 
there  are  places  where  one  would  have  thought  something 
of  the  kind  must  have  been  mentioned,  at  least  hinted  at. 
But  not  one  single  suspicion  seems  to  have  crossed  the 
mind  of  Burchard.  The  idea  had  not,  it  seems,  as  yet 
reached  Rome. 

And  if  we  believe  in  Lucretia's  guilt,  for  which  there 
is  not  a  tittle  of  real  evidence,  we  must  suppose,  with 
Guicciardini,  that  the  family  of  Este  were  bribed  or 
frightened  into  a  marriage  which  would  have  been  repul- 
sive to  the  last  degree  :  we  must  suppose  that  men  like 
the  Duke  of  Ferrara,  or  Alphonso,  his  son,  distinguished 
alike  for  their  virtues  and  talents,  civil  and  military,  beyond 
any  of  the  sovereigns  of  the  time,  would  have  submitted 
to  have  perpetuated  their  race  through  the  contaminated 
blood  of  a  known  and  incestuous  prostitute.  But  they 
took  her  into  their  proud  family  with  no  sign  of  reluctance, 
and  for  twenty  years  she  lived  amongst  them,  not  merely 
without  reproach,  but  a  highly  e.xemplary  life,  rigid  even 
to  severity  in  her  religious  duties,  and  devoted  to  works 
of  benevolence  and  piety  :  receiving  the  highest  com 
mendations  from  Leo  X. 

The  testimonies  she  received  from  those  amongst 
whom  she  lived  were  quite  uncommon  in  their  character 
and  number.  The  testimony  of  Bembo,  her  admirer,  or 
of  Ercole  Strozzi,  and  Antonio  Tebaldeo,  may  be  con- 
sidered comparatively  worthless,  though  not  entirely 
without  their  value  :  but  the  testimony  of  historians  like 
Giraldi,  Sardi,  Libanori,  Caviceo,  cannot  be  easily  set 
aside.  According  to  these  she  was  a  '  woman  of  un- 
' common  excellence,'  'a  princess  adorned  with  every 

II  2 


lOO  Alexander  VI.,  the  Political  Ecclesiastic 


virtue,'  'a  most  beautiful  and  virtuous  princess,  endowed 
'  with  every  estimable  quality  of  the  mind,  and  with  the 
'  highest  polish  of  understanding';  whilst  Caviceo,  in  his 
'  II  Peregrino,'  considers  that  he  has  sufficiently  praised  the 
celebrated  Isabella  of  Este,  in  asserting  that  she  comes 
next  in  excellence  to  Lucretia  Borgia,  As  Roscoe  says  : 
'  If  the  most  remote  idea  had  been  entertained  that 
'  Lucretia  had  been  the  detestable  character  which  the 
'  Neapolitan  poets  have  represented  her,  is  it  to  be  con- 
'  ceived  that  this  author  would  have  introduced  one  of 
'  the  first  women  in  Italy,  in  point  of  rank,  character,  and 
'  accomplishments,  as  only  second  to  her  in  merit  ?  ' 

And  Ariosto — is  it  conceivable  that  he  should  have 
spoken  as  he  did,  if  the  modern  idea  of  Lucretia  were 
true  ?  He  represents  her  '  as  rivalling,  in  the  decorum  of 
'  her  manners,  as  well  as  in  the  beauty  of  her  person,  all 
'  that  former  times  could  boast ' — 

clari  soboles  Lucretia  Borgia 
Pulchro  ore,  et  pulchris  requantem  moribus,  aut  quos 
Verax  fama  refert,  aut  quos  sibi  fabula  finxit. 

And  he  says  that  Rome  '  ought  to  prefer  the  modern 
'  Lucretia  to  the  Lucretia  of  antiquity,  as  well  in  modesty 
'  as  in  beauty.' 

Such  descriptions  would  be  simply  the  severest  satires 
if  the  aspersions  under  which  she  laboured  had  obtained 
the  slightest  credit. 

Lastly,  there  is  Aldo  Manuzio  : — '  Your  chief  desire, 
'  as  you  have  yourself  so  nobly  asserted,  is  to  stand  ap- 
'  proved  of  God,  and  to  be  useful  not  only  to  the  present 
'  age  but  to  future  times,'  and  then  he  celebrates  her  piety. 
Now,  as  Roscoe  says,  if  Lucretia  had  ever  been  such  as 
x' Dksm°  hten  described,  'the  prostitution  of  her  panegyrists 

on  Lucretia.   y^^z,  greater  than  her  own  ;  but  of  such  a  degradation, 
several  of  the  authors  before  cited  were  incapable.'  And 


Alexander  VI.,  the  Political  Ecclesiastic  loi 

'  it  is  scarcely  possible  that  the  flagitious  and  abominable 
'  Lucretia,  and  the  respectable  and  honoured  Duchess  of 
'  Ferrara,  could  be  united  in  the  same  person.'  It  is  not 
as  if  there  were  some  break  in  her  life,  and  the  latter  part 
were  the  penitential  reparation  of  the  former.  There 
is  not  a  trace  of  this.  No;  the  honoured  Duchess  of 
Ferrara  is  matter  of  reliable  history  :  the  abominable 
Lucretia  is  the  foul  creation  of  writers  who  in  other 
matters  have  shown  shameless  mendacity.  And  we  may 
say  to  Guicciardini  of  his  portraiture  of  Alexander  and 
Lucretia  what  Voltaire  said  to  him  of  his  account  of 
Alexander's  death  :  '  Thou  hast  deceived  Europe,  and 
'  thou  hast  been  deceived  by  thy  passions  ;  you  were  the 
'  enemy  of  the  Pope,  and  you  have  believed  your  hatred.' 

But  a  virtuous  Lucretia  means  an  Alexander  relieved 
of  a  horrible  calumny.  The  question  suggests  itself, 
How  much  else  is  false  ?  To  form  any  fair  estimate  of 
Alexander  we  must  bear  in  mind  the  state  of  things  in 
Italy  at  the  time  he  ascended  the  throne. 

A  cruel  tyrant  reigned  at  Naples  in  Ferdinand  I.  ; 
at  Florence  Piero  de'  Medici  had  succeeded  Lorenzo,  and 
was  soon  to  be  shamefully  treated  by  Savonarola  ;  Milan 
was  under  Lodovico  il  Moro,  who  was  on  the  eve  of 
inviting  the  French  into  Italy,  whilst  a  wild  lad  ruled 
France  in  the  person  of  Charles  VIII.  Round  about 
Rome  itself  the  petty  States  were  ruled  by  tyrants, 
vassals  of  the  pontiff,  continually  intriguing  and  rebelling, 
who  gave  rise  to  the  saying,  '  Better  to  live  under  the 
'  crozier  than  the  lance.'  And  in  Rome  itself,  the  Orsinis 
and  Colonnas  had  rendered  the  city  almost  uninhabitable 
to  respectable  characters.  Owing  to  the  long  sojourn  of 
the  Popes  at  Avignon,  the  disorder  had  reached  such  a 
height  that  no  less  than  200  homicides  are  said  to  have 
been  committed  in  the  city  within  the  two  previous  years. 
Suddenly,  on  July  25,  1492,  Innocent  VIII.  was  reported 


I02  Alexander  VT.,  the  Political  Ecclesiastic 

dead.  Amongst  the  cardinals  was  one  of  known  industry 
and  enterprise ;  of  proved  capacity  for  managing  men  ; 
according  to  his  bitterest  enemy,  of  '  singular  acuteness 
'  and  sagacity,  excellent  in  council,  and  in  all  weighty 
'  matters  of  incredible  concentration  of  ideas  and  astute- 
'  ness.'  It  was  Roderigo  Borgia.  He  was  unanimously 
elected,  and  took  the  name  of  Alexander  VI.  NapleSj 
Florence,  France,  knew  well  what  sort  of  man  it  was 
with  whom  they  had  to  deal.  Ferdinand  wept,  and 
Florence  whetted  the  knife  of  calumny. 

The  Orsinis  and  Colonnas  knew  that  their  day  of 
reckoning  was  at  hand.  The  sheep  on  whom  they  had 
preyed  like  wolves,  had  a  shepherd,  and  the  shepherd 
could  unsheathe  a  sword  as  well  as  handle  the  crozier. 
The  city  of  Rome  was  thrown  into  a  delirium  of  joy. 
Men's  lives  were  henceforth  safe,  anr'  their  conscious, 
ness  of  deliverance  expressed  itself  in  the  exaggeration 
common  to  the  time. 

Csesare  magna  fuit  :  nunc  Roma  est  maxima  :  Sextus 
Regnat  Alexander  :  ille  vir,  iste  deus. 

Never  was  coronation  so  grand  as  that  of  Alexander  VI. 
and  never  did  a  metropolis  cling  to  its  ruler  more 
faithfully  than  the  citizens  of  Rome  to  the  new  Pontiff. 
His  first  act  was  to  make  life  safe  in  the  streets  of  Rome. 
And  as  in  Rome,  so  in  the  States.  He  was  prepared 
to  defend  his  subjects  from  the  tyranny  and  disorders 
under  which  they  had  suffered.  The  struggle  was  tre- 
mendous, and  the  enmities  roused  in  the  monsters  of 
rapacity  and  cruelty  that  had  settled  down  upon  the 
Papal  possessions,  can  be  easily  imagined.  Caesar 
Borgia,  the  Pope's  nearest  relative,  was  selected  as  his 
General ;  and  such  was  the  vigour  with  which  he  fulfilled 
his  charge  that,  after  the  death  of  Alexander,  several  cities 
were  eager  to  remain  under  Caesar  Borgia's  protection. 


Alexander  VI.,  the  Political  Ecclesiastic  103 

Ferdinand,  who  had  intrigued  with  the  Pontiff's  rehclHous 
vassal,  felt  the  strong  hand  of  the  new  ruler,  and  Florence, 
his  ally,  shared  his  enmity  against  the  powerful  Pope. 
Such  was  the  success  of  the  new  policy,  however,  that 
Philippe  de  Commines  said  that,  were  it  only  for  the 
difference  between  government  by  a  strong  hand,  and 
government  by  factions,  the  territory  of  the  Church 
would  be  the  happiest  home  in  the  world. 

And  what  was  the  life  of  the  new  Pope?  The 
BuUarium,  the  Consistorial  Acts,  the  Allocutions  and 
Constitutions  of  the  Pontiff  are  unimpeachable  witnesses 
to  his  industry,  watchfulness,  enterprise,  and  sagacity. 
The  Bullarium  of  Alexander  VI.,  dealing  with  the  gravest 
subjects,  from  the  canonisation  of  S.  Anselm,  Arch- 
bishop of  Canterbury,  to  the  constitution  forbidding  the 
re-baptism  of  the  Ruthenians,  reveals  his  care  for  one 
side  of  his  office,  whilst  Burchard's  Diary  is  witness  to 
his  punctilious  fulfilment  of  another  side.  His  official 
acts  exhibit  splendid  energy.  At  one  moment  he  is 
giving  his  approbation  to  religious  orders  ;  at  another 
moment  he  is  reconciling  the  schismatics  of  Georgia  to 
the  unity  of  the  Church.  He  appeals  for  assistance  to 
prevent  a  French  invasion  of  Italy  :  he  agitates  for  a 
new  crusade  of  Christendom  against  the  Mussulmans  ; 
he  is  called  in  as  arbiter  of  the  disputes  between  two 
Governments  respecting  the  boundary  of  their  newly 
discovered  territories  in  America.  In  one  direction  we 
find  him  labouring  for  the  conversion  of  a  colony  of 
Moors  ;  in  another  he  is  addressing  his  bulls  to  Cologne, 
Mayence,  Magdeburg,  Treves,  to  prevent  the  perversion 
of  his  flock  by  means  of  bad  books.  Spain  appeals  to 
him,  and  Portugal.  England  asks  that  the  bones  of 
Henry  VI.  may  be  transferred  to  Westminster  Abbey. 

For  all  this  we  have  unimpeachable  testimony.  Such 
was  the  Pope.    What  was  the  man  ?    This  is  the  man 


104  Alexander  VI.,  the  Political  Ecclesiastic 


who  all  the  while,  according  to  Florentine  histor}',  is 
indulging  in  orgies  and  foul,  horrible  deeds,  that  hardly 
find  their  equal  except  in  the  annals  of  the  old  Emperors 
of  Rome  !    And  yet  a  really  careful  writer,  Audin,  assures 
'Hist,  de      us  that  under  this  Pope  rich  and  poor  had  equal  justice 
^'        done  them  in  Rome,  and  that  soldiers  and  citizens  long 
clung  to  his  memory,  because  of  his  royal  qualities.  We 
are  told  that  he  was  sparing  of  sleep  and  sparing  in  his 
diet  ;  at  table  he  appeared  and  disappeared  like  a  shadow. 
It  was  no  pleasure  to  dine  at  the  A^atican,  so  severe  was 
the  regime  ;  he  was  a  man  severe  to  himself,  but  kind  to 
others  ;  his  ear  never  closed  to  the  cry  of  the  needy,  his 
heart  never  shrinking  from  chastising  the  evil-doer.  All 
this  we  know,  and  a  contemporary  writer  sums  up  : 
A  continu-     '  Happy,  therefore,  was  Rome  in  possessing   such  a 
t^i"a  °Lyons    '  Pontiff — a  man  whom  one  could  rarely  find  otherwise 
1512.  t  engaged  than  in  reading  books,  or  in  Divine  worship,  or 

'  the  work  of  Christ,  considering  nothing  so  bad  as  the 
'  loss  of  time.'    And  this  at  three  score  years  and  ten  ! 

But  Guicciardini  has  given  another  portrait  of  the 
Pope,  and  he  has  been  followed  by  writer  after  writer. ' 
Repetition  often  gives  a  fictitious  value  to  an  originally 
false  statement,  and  it  has  been  so  here.  Guicciardini, 
as  we  have  said,  came  from  Florence,  and  the  suspicious 
part  of  the  whole  of  the  darker  portrait  of  Alexander  is 
that  so  much  of  it  is  given  as  mere  hearsay,  and  almost 
all  of  it  can  be  traced  back  to  Florence  and  Naples.  We 
have  seen  how  grossly  Guicciardini  lied  about  Alexander's 
predecessor,  asserting  that  his  children,  born  in  honourable 
wedlock  before  he  was  ordained,  were  his  offspring  after 
he  was  a  priest.  His  account,  too,  of  Alexander's 
death  is  an  elaborate  lie,  differing  altogether  from 
Burchard's.    It  was  this  that  provoked  Voltaire's  exclama- 

'  Even  George  Eliot,  generally  more  careful,  has  acted  the 
parrot  here. 


Alcxntidcr  VI.,  the  Political  Ecclesiastic  105 

tion  against  Guicciardini's  animus.  Guicciardini,  again, 
states  that  Alexander  entered  upon  his  pontificate  by  a 
simoniacal  election.  And  in  this  he  is  followed  by  all 
Protestant  historians.  Even  Professor  Creighton,  who 
writes  so  much  more  fairly  than  most,  follows  him  in  his 
statement  about  Ascanio  Sforza.  He  says,  '  Ascanio 
'  Sforza's  zeal  was  increased  by  the  promise  of  the  office 
'  of  Vice-Chancellor,  and  Borgia's  palace;  Orsini,  Colonna, 
'  Savelli,  Sanseverino,  Riario,  Pallavicini,  even  the  nona- 
'  genarian  Gherardo  of  Venice,  all  received  promises  of 
'  benefices,  or  gifts  of  money.'  Where  is  his  authority  for 
all  this  ?  The  Ferrarese  ambassador  at  Florence.  And 
who  was  his  authority  ?  The  Florentine  envoy.  Always 
Florence  !  And  the  specification  of  what  each  received 
is  to  be  found,  where?  In  a  letter  of  the  Florentine 
ValorL  Yet,  according  to  Valori,  Alexander  was  unani- 
mously elected;  and  nothing  was  heard  about  his  supposed 
simoniacal  election,  until  Charles  VIII.,  to  further  his 
purpose  of  aggrandisement,  like  Otho  and  Henry  IV. 
before  him,  pretended  to  have  scruples  about  the  Pope's 
election.  When  it  no  longer  served  that  purpose,  the 
subject  was  dropped.  I  may  mention  that  Dr.  Littledale 
seems  to  be  unaware  of  the  Church's  teaching  on  this 
subject,  viz.,  that  the  electing  cardinals  represent  the 
Church,  and  the  Church's  acceptance  of  their  action  is 
sufficient  to  validate  an  election,  otherwise  irregular. 
But  the  proof  of  simony  in  this  case  is  by  no  means 
clear.  The  most  important  personage  among  the 
cardinals  at  the  commencement  of  Alexander's  reign,  was 
Ascanio  Sforza.  He  is  said  to  have  secured  the  Pope's 
election  by  his  personal  influence,  and,  according  to  the 
Florentine  writers,  followed  by  Professor  Creighton,  to 
have  been  himself  influenced  by  simoniacal  promises. 
Now  we  must  remember  that  it  is  the  promise  of  a  gift, 
not  its  mere  acceptance,  which  constitutes  simony.  But 


lo5  Alexander  VL,  the  Political  Ecclesiastic 


where  is  the  proof  of  the  promise  ?  In  the  important 
case  of  Cardinal  Sforza,  the  evidence  utterly  breaks 
•History of  down.  'His  zeal  was  increased  by  the  promise  of  the 
toL^u!""'^''  'office  of  Yice-Chancellor,  and  Borgia's  palace,'  says 
Professor  Creighton.  Guicciardini  tells  us  that  he  was 
bribed  by  Borgia's  palace.  But  when  we  come  to  examine 
the  statement,  we  find  it  rests  on  nothing.  Cardinal 
Sforza  did  not  have  Borgia's  palace.  It  was  given  to 
Battista  Orsini.  Some  one  must  have  had  the  office  of 
Vice-Chancellor  ;  who  so  fitted,  from  Alexander's  point  of 
view,  as  Ascanio  Sforza  ?  \Miere  is  the  evidence  of  any 
simoniacal  prearrangement  ?  It  is  simply  wanting.  Pro- 
fessor Creighton  considers  that  the  testimony  of  Infessura 
is  confirmed  by  Manfredi,  and  Valori.  But  Manfredi 
and  Valori  do  not  confirm  the  important  part  of  Professor 
Creighton's  statement.  They  say  nothing  about  the 
promise.  So  far  from  saying  that  Ascanio  Sforza's  zeal 
'■luas  increased  by  the  promise  of  the  office,  &:c.,'  as  the 
Professor  asserts,  Valori  simply  says  that  Ascanio  Sforza 
secured  the  election  of  Alexander  (which  clears  Alex- 
ander), and  that  beyond  this  '  Quello  che  habbi  inducto 
Aschanio  non  posso  anchora  intendere'  (Burchard's 
'Diarium,'  vol.  ii.  p.  6io).  As  for  Infessura's  testimony, 
Professor  Creighton  himself  elsewhere  makes  a  great 
'  Historj-  of  admission.  '  Infessura  who  was  an  adherent  of  the 
vl.1.  iii.  p.  Colonna  family,  and  had  the  spirit  of  a  republican,  has 
blackened  his  (Alexander's)  memorj'  \nth  accusations  of 
the  foulest  crimes.  These  charges,  made  by  a  partisan 
with  undisguised  animosity,  must  be  dismissed  as  un- 
proved.' And  yet.  Professor  Creighton,  strangely  enough, 
repeats  one  charge  which,  so  far  as  I  can  ascertain,  rests 
on  the  authority  only  of  Infessura  and  Guicciardini, 
and  seems  to  be  mere  spiteful  gossip.  It  occurs  in 
Burchard's  Diar)-,  but  is  confessedly  an  interpolation  from 
Infessura.     It  runs  thus :   '  Even  the  nonagenarian 


Alexander  V/.,  tJie  Political  Ecclcsiaslic  107 

'  Gherardo,  of  Venice  '  (says  Professor  Creighton),  '  was 
'  amongst  those  who  received  promises  of  benefices  or 
'  gifts  of  money.'    But  here  are  the  facts. 

In  Burchard's  Diary,  or  rather  the  interpolation  from 
Infessura,  this  good  man  figures  as  a  'certain  white  monk 
'  of  Venice '  (cuidam  fratri  albo  Veneto)  '  lately  received 
'  into  the  cardinalate,'  to  whom  Alexander  gave  5,000 
golden  ducats.  This  was  Morfeo  Gheraldo,  a  former  gene- 
ral of  the  Camaldolese,  patriarch  of  Venice,  whose  pro- 
motion to  the  cardinalate  took  place  28  years  before — not 
very  recent.  If  any  reliance  is  to  be  placed  on  Infegsura's 
statement,  which  is  not  confirmed  by  Valori,  it  is  easily 
explained  by  the  fact  that  the  old  man,  being  a  monk, 
would  need  an  income,  or  capital  to  supply  an  income, 
for  the  expenses  of  the  cardinalate.  But  it  is  easy  to  be 
inventive,  when  we  are  on  the  track  of  calumny.  It  was 
necessary  that  Alexander  should  bestow  on  some  one  his 
own  office  of  Vice-Chancellor,  when  elected  Pope  ;  it 
was  necessary,  or  natural,  that  he  should  part  with  his 
palace,  when  he  entered  mto  possession  of  the  Vatican  ; 
It  was  necessary  that  he  should  cease  to  be  Abbot  of 
Subiaco,  and  that  some  one  should  have  the  abbacy  ;  it 
was  necessary  that  some  one  should  succeed  him  as 
Bishop  of  Porto.  It  was  natural  that  he  should  give 
these  and  other  things  to  those  who  were  his  friends. 
As  for  the  cities  of  Nepi,  and  Citta  di  Castello,  if 
they  were  in  need  of  governors,  he  at  once  appointed 
those  whom  he  could  trust.  But  the  bestowal  of  gifts, 
in  the  hands  of  a  Guicciardini  and  an  Infessura,  be- 
comes a  promise  before  election ;  and  the  desire  to 
crush  an  enemy  suggests  to  an  adventurous  lad,  like 
Charles  VIII.,  or  to  his  political  advisers,  the  charge  of 
simony. 

It  fell  to  the  ground.  There  was  probably  little  more 
foundation  for  it  than  in  the  case  of  S.  Gregory  VII., 


io8  Alexander  VI.,  the  Political  Ecclesiastic 

against  whom  Henry  IV.  found  it  convenient  to  bring  a 
similar  charge. 

But  we  cannot  forget  that  even  Savonarola  hurled 
the  charge  against  the  Pope,  after  he  had  been  inhibited 
from  preaching.  There  is  no  more  piteous  spectacle  in 
history  than  the  change  from  Savonarola  the  earnest 
preacher,  to  Savonarola  the  fanatic  and  political  agitator.' 
Savonarola  shamefully  treated  Piero  de  Medici,  and 
Piero  was  Alexander's  friend.  Savonarola  could  even 
erect  a  boy,  like  Charles  VIII.,  into  a  sort  of  demigod 
brought  on  to  the  scene  to  carr)'out  the  Divine  purposes. 
The  man  who  had  so  rightly  guarded  the  faithful  against 
the  teaching  of  fanaticism  by  inhibiting  his  appearance 
in  the  pulpit,  became  nothing  but  a  vicious  Pope,  as 
Savonarola  greedily  listened  to  Florentine  tales  ;^  and 
when  Savonarola  and  Valori  came  to  their  death  in  a 
tempest  of  popular  fury,  Florentine  calumny  was  equal 
to  attributing  their  death  directly  to  Alexander  VI. 

I  am  not,  however,  concerned  to  defend  Alexander 
against  all  accusations.  It  is  no  part  of  my  argument 
that  he  was  free  from  fault.  That  there  is  nothing  really 
proved  against  him  of  a  compromising  character,  from  a 
moral  point  of  view,  during  his  pontificate,  I  am  myself 
profoundly  convinced.  I  am  aware  of  the  Bull  concerning 
Giovanni  Borgia,^  and  of  a  single  passage  in  Burchard 
which  seems  to  be  confirmed  by  it.  But  we  need  some 
further  evidence  to  clear  up  the  confusion  that  exists  on 
that  matter.    It  is,  however,  as  a  Pope  rather  than  as  a 

'  Burchard's  estimate  of  Savonarola  is  very  unfavourable,  so  far 
as  his  attitude  towards  the  Pope  is  concerned. 

-  For  a  careful  estimate  of  Savonarola's  character,  see  Jung- 
mann,  Diss.  Hist.  vol.  v.  p.  xxxvi. 

'  Although,  after  perusing  all  the  Bulls  relating  to  the  Borgia 
family,  I  cannot  adopt  Leonetti's  too  favourable  contention,  I 
think  he  does  give  fair  evidence  to  show  that  this  Giovanni  was  the 
son  of  Caesar  Borgia. 


Alexander  VI.,  the  Political  Ecclesiastic  109 


man  that  we  have  to  consider  him,  and  it  seems  clear 
that  in  that  age  the  ApostoHc  See  did  not  suffer  that 
diminution  in  the  eyes  of  men  which  is  often  supposed.' 
The  head  of  Alexander's  offence  was,  after  all,  his  de- 
fence of  the  temporal  possessions  of  the  Holy  See,  and  his 
use  of  Ccesar  Borgia  to  defend  them.  The  defence  of  the 
possessions-  of  the  Holy  See  was,  however,  a  defence  of 
the  rights  of  property  ;  it  was  a  '  magnanimous  '  object 
according  to  Ranke,  and,  appearing  as  he  did  in  an 
age  when  the  atmosphere  was  steeped  in  falsehood  and 
calumny,  and  daring  to  rescue  the  sheep  committed  to 
his  charge  from  men  who  were  '  fiends  in  human  shape,' 
he  has  been  credited  with  a  mode  of  life  for  which,  so 
far  as  his  pontificate  is  concerned,  there  is  no  sufficient 
evidence  beyond  the  assertions  of  his  sworn  foes — men 
who  frequently  not  only  do  not  vouch  for  the  truth  of  their 
statements,  but  do  not  vouch  even  for  their  own  belief 
in  them.  '  They  say,'  '  it  is  said,'  are  scattered  over  the 
pages  of  Guicciardini,  and  are  a  favourite  formula  with 
Burchard. 

It  cannot,  then,  be  held  with  any  show  of  truth  that 
the  language  of  the  Homilies,  such  as  that  '  the  whole 
'  of  Christendom  was  steeped  in  damnable  idolatry  for 
'  800  years '  before  the  Reformation,  is  explained,  much 
less  justified,  by  the  life  of  a  Pope  such  as  Alexander  VI. 
It  was  not  this  that  set  Luther  against  the  Papacy,  and, 
after  him,  Henry  VIII.  Let  the  latter  answer  for  Luther. 
'Formerly,'  says  the  king,  'Luther  wrote  against  the 
'  Bohemians,  that  they  sinned  damnably  who  did  not  obey 
'  the  Pope.'  This  was  after  Alexander's  death,  when  the 
Papacy  was  in  very  different  hands.  Henry  continues, 
'  But  I  ask  this  :  He  that  saw  these  things  so  short  a 

'  Hiibner  says  well,  '  Alexandre  VI,  de  triste  memoire,  passait 
'  liii-meme  parmi  ses  contemporains  pour  un  grand  pape.' — Sixtc  V, 
Introd.  iv. 


no  Alexaiider  VI.,  tJie  Political  Ecclesiastic 


'  while  since,  how  is  it  that  he  becomes  of  opinion  that 
'  then  he  saw  nothing  at  all  ?  What  new  eyes  has  he  got  ? 
'  Is  his  sight  more  sharp  after  he  has  joined  anger  to  his 
'  wonted  pride,  and  has  added  hatred  to  both  ? ' 

And  for  himself  the  king  answers  the  question  with 
the  greatest  naivete.    When  the  Papal  Nuncio  expostu- 
lated with  him  in  1533,  and  he  hinted  that  deeper  studies 
might  make  him  change  his  opinion  back  to  acceptance 
Bridgett's     of  the  Papacy,  he  added  that  that  would  depend  on  the 

Fisher,'  conduct  of  the  Pope,  i.e.  in  the  matter  of  granting;  the 
p.  309.         J . 

divorce. 

On  the  whole  question  S.  Augustine's  words  should 
be  treasured. 

He  says :  '  Our  Heavenly  Master  so  carefully  fore- 
'  warned  us  as  to  give  people  an  assurance  in  regard  to 
'  bad  prelates,  lest  on  their  account  the  chair  of  saving 
'  doctrine  should  be  abandoned,  in  which  even  bad  men 
'  are  forced  to  utter  what  is  good.  For  what  they  say  is 
Donat  '  t^heir  own  ;  it  is  of  God,  Who  has  placed  the  doctrine 
'  of  truth  in  the  chair  of  unity.' 

In  the  very  hour  when  Caiaphas  was  plotting  murder, 
or  rather  Deicide,  it  pleased  God  not  to  deprive  that 
High  Priest  of  the  power  of  prophesying.  '  He  spoke 
'  not  of  himself,  but,  being  the  High  Priest  of  that  year, 
'  he  prophesied  that  Jesus  should  die  for  that  nation ' 
(S.  John  xi.  51),  on  which  S.  Chrysostom  remarks  that 
'  Grace  used  only  the  mouth  of  Caiaphas,  and  did  not 
'  touch  his  impure  heart.' 

But  further  (i)  take  the  sixteenth  century  as  a  whole 
and  you  have  a  Pius  III,,  who  seemed  to  be  specially 
raised  up  to  remove  scandals  ;  Julius  II.,  who,  with  his 
rough  address  and  warrior  heart,  had  at  least,  according 
to  Macaulay,  a  'great '  mind  ;  Leo  X.,  who  assisted  Cardinal 
Ximenes  in  publishing  his  Polyglot  Bible,  excommunicated 
Luther,  and  anathematised  thirty-five  of  his  propositions 


Alexander  VI.,  the  Political  Ecclesiastic    1 1 1 


glolw  ;  Adrian  VI.,  the  reformer  of  abuses  in  court, 
'  frugal,  virtuous,  and  industrious  '  in  theological  work  ; 
Clement  VII.,  who  was  at  least  respected,  though  not 
obeyed,  by  Henry  VIII.  ;  Paul  III.,  concerned  wholly 
with  the  work  of  Church  reform  ;  Julius  III.,  in  fierce 
struggle  with  the  detestable  errors  of  Luther  ;  and 
Marcellus  II.,  who  in  twenty-one  days  exhibited  a  devo- 
tion and  nobility  sufficient  to  cause  universal  regret  at  his 
death.  Let  Lord  Macaulay  speak  for  the  rest.  'They 
'  were,'  he  tells  us,  '  men  whose  spirit  resembled  that  of 
'  Dunstan  and  of  Becket.  The  Roman  pontiffs  exhibited  in 
'  their  own  persons  all  the  austerity  of  the  early  anchorites 
'  of  Syria.  Paul  IV.  brought  to  the  Papal  throne  the  same 
'  fervent  zeal  that  had  carried  him  into  the  Theatine 
'  convent.  Pius  V.,  under  his  gorgeous  vestments,  wore, 
'  day  and  night,  the  hair-shirt  of  a  simple  friar,  walked 
'  barefoot  in  the  streets  at  the  head  of  processions,  found, 
'  even  in  the  midst  of  his  most  pressing  avocations,  time 
'  for  private  prayer,  often  regretted  that  the  public  duties 
'  of  his  station  were  unfavourable  to  growth  in  holiness, 
'  and  edified  his  flock  by  innumerable  instancesof  humility, 
'  charity,  and  forgiveness  of  injuries  ;  while  at  the  same 
'  time  he  upheld  the  authority  of  his  See,  and  the  un-  E^sa 
'  adulterated  doctrines  of  his  Church,  with  all  the  stub-  f^n". 
'  bornness  and  vehemence  [he  might  have  said  firmness 
'  and  courage]  of  Hildebrand.  Gregory  XIII.  exerted 
'  himself,  not  only  to  imitate,  but  to  surpass  Pius  in  the 
'  severe  virtues  of  his  sacred  profession.' 

Nor  must  we  forget  Sixtus  V.  and  all  his  work  for 
public  peace  and  morals,  and  for  the  publication  of  a 
pure  edition  of  Holy  Scripture.  And  then,  after  Urban 
VI I. 's  reign  of  a  single  fortnight,  with  his  tranquil  and 
edifying  death,  and  Gregory  XIV.,  of  stainless  life, 
and  Innocent  IX.,  with  his  reign  of  two  months  so  full 
of  promise— the  century  closed  with  Clement  VIII., 


1 1 2  Alexander  VI.,  the  Political  Ecclesiastic 


encouraging  piety  and  knowledge  in  every  part  of  the 
Church,  publishing  the  most  accurate  edition  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  and  surrounding  himself  with  cardinals  such 
as  Baronius,  Bellarmine,  and  Du  Perron. 

And  secondly,  if  Alexander  VI. 's  life  was  such  as  to 
explain  the  abusive  language  of  the  Homilies,  how  is  it 
that  it  had  no  such  effect  on  S.  Carlo  Borromeo,  or  S. 
Philip  Neri  ? 

Even  if  Alexander  VI.  had  really  been  all  that  he  is 
painted  by  his  foes,  his  appearance  in  the  midst  of  a  long 
line  of  saints  and  martyrs  could  not  compromise  the 
Divine  original  of  the  institution. 

At  the  end  of  the  fifteenth  century  lived  a  Saint  of 
the  Blood  Royal  of  France,  daughter  and  wife  of  a  king, 
S.  Jane  of  Valois.  After  a  life  of  great  sanctity,  when 
repudiated  by  her  lawful  husband,  and,  indeed,  harshly 
treated  by  Alexander,  she  founded  the  Order  of  the 
Annunciation.  She  met  with  the  usual  difficulties  in  the 
way  of  founding  a  new  order,  but  at  length  obtained  her 
cherished  wish.  She  applied  to  the  Vicar  of  Christ,  with 
all  the  devotion  to  the  Holy  See  which  has  been  the 
unvarying  characteristic  of  the  Saints,  and  her  Order  was 
finally  approved  by  Alexander  VI.  There  was  nothing 
in  his  life  that  could  stagger  her  faith  in  the  Divine 
institution  of  the  Papacy.  The  fact  is  that  the  life  of 
the  Church  went  on  in  spite  of  the  Court  of  Rome,'  for 
men  knew  that  our  Lord  had  provided  for  such  con- 
tingencies, as  worldly  rulers  :  '  What  they  teach,  observe 
'and  do  ;  but  do  not  according  to  their  works.' 

When,  then,  to  Barlow's  evil  life  men  oppose  an  in- 
stance such  as  that  of  Alexander  VI.,  they  miss  the  point 
of  our  objection.    As  I  have  said  above,  Alexander  did 

'  The  corruption  and  laxity  of  discipline,  nevertheless,  has 
been  enormously  exaggerated.    See  Jungmann,  Hist.  Diss.  vol.  v. 


Alexander  VI.,  the  Political  Ecclesiastic  113 

hot  start  the  Papacy.  But  Barlow  did,  according  to  our 
contention,  start  the  Anglican  Succession. 

So  that  the  argument  stands  thus  : — ■ 

It  is  not  wonderful  that  God,  having  ordained  that  the 
Pope  should  be  elected  by  human  means,  should  permit 
the  occasional  occurrence  of  an  unworthy  choice.  It 
would  be  wonderful,  when  His  own  immediate  action  de- 
termined the  selection,  that  it  should  fall  on  a  bad  man. 
It  would  have  been  amazing  had  Judas,  instead  of  Peter, 
been  appointed  to  preside  over  the  planting  of  the  Faith, 
or  for  Judas  to  have  survived  so  as  to  take  part  in  that 
work  at  all  as  an  Apostle.  What  we  feel  as  an  objection 
to  the  Anglican  system  is  this — that  whenever  a  great 
work  of  reformation  has  been  required  in  the  Catholic 
Church,  God  has  raised  up  Saints  to  preside  over  it ;  but 
this  alleged  Anglican  Reformation  was  presided  over  by 
a  class  of  men  whom  Dr.  Littledale,  in  his  better  days, 
called  irredeemable  villains.  But  further.  Barlow's  wicked- 
ness was  distinctly  of  the  kind  that  might  lead  him  to  lend 
a  helping  hand  in  vitiating  the  Apostolic  Succession.  It 
is  not  disputed  that  he  was  a  bad  man.  It  is  on  record 
that  his  badness,  whilst  considerable  in  other  respects, 
took  the  form  of  contempt  for  the  Apostolic  Succession. 
It  is  on  record  that  the  evidence  of  consecration  is  wanting 
in  this  particular  case  of  a  bad  man,  who  held  the  whole 
proceeding  in  contempt.  It  is  on  record,  finally,  that 
such  a  man  was  the  best  they  could  obtain  to  preside 
over  the  function  by  which  the  succession  is  supposed 
to  have  been  passed  on  to  the  present  Anglican  epis- 
copate. 


I 


114  Henry  VIII.,  the  Ecclesiastical  Politician 


CHAPTER  VII. 

HENRY  VIII.,  THE  ECCLESIASTICAL  POLITICIAN. 

Next  to  the  idea  that  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  laid 
down  the  principle  that  Rome  had  a  primacy  of  honour, 
not  of  rule  —  derived  from  its  secular  position,  not 
from  its  relationship  to  the  Apostle  Peter — accidental, 
and  not  essential  to  the  form  of  the  Church's  unity — 
there  is  no  delusion  that  has  been  insisted  on  more 
strongly  of  late  years  than  the  clerical  origin  of  the 
so-called  Reformation.  The  Church  in  England,  it  is 
contended,  severed  herself  from  Rome,  and  reformed 
herself.  She  remained  the  same  as  of  old  in  all  essential 
doctrine,  only  she  taught  the  Faith  without  the  incubus 
of  the  disciplinary  arrangement  which  bound  her  to  the 
Patriarch  of  the  West.  Some  few  years  ago  it  was  the 
fashion  among  the  highest  Churchmen  to  deplore  this 
severance,  and  to  denounce  its  method  of  action.  It  was 
held,  with  Dr.  Littledale,  in  his  masterly  sketch  of  the 
Reformation,  that  '  it  is  not  as  though  in  a  great  crisis 
'  some  few  mistakes  were  made  by  human  weakness,  which 
*  we  should  condone  in  consideration  of  the  great  work 
'effected,  but  motives,  actions,  language,  were,  all  alike, 
<  rotten  and  bad.'  • 

It  was,  however,  clear  that  such  language  could  only 
lead  men  of  decisive  character  to  transfer  their  allegiance, 
and  every  effort  has  been  made  of  late  to  rest  the  cause 
'  See  Littledale's  Lecture  on  Innovations. 


Henry  VIII.,  the  Ecclesiastical  Politician    1 1 5 

on  a  different  line  of  argument.  The  line  adopted  by  the 
author  of  the  '  Roman  Question '  is  altogether  different. 
In  his  chapter  on  '  The  Separation  of  England  from  Rome,' 
he  attributes  this  separation,  or  at  least  far  the  largest  share, 
to  '  the  like  causes  which  centuries  before  alienated  the 

*  Eastern  patriarchates '  from  the  Holy  See  (p.  20).  He  had 
previously  attributed  the  Eastern  rebellion  to  encroach- 
ment on  the  part  of  Rome,  instead  of,  as  is  the  real  history 
of  the  matter,  to  the  ambitious  projects  of  Constantinople. 

He  is  anxious,  therefore,  to  show  that  the  clergy  of 
England  desired  a  change,  not  of  doctrine,  but  of  rule. 

There  is  here  a  slight  confusion  of  thought.  For  he 
begins  by  eliminating  from  the  range  of  '  doctrine '  the 
question  of  the  relationship  of  the  English  Episcopate  to 
the  See  of  S.  Peter.    And  so  he  is  able  to  say  (p.  14), 

*  There  was  scarcely  any  change  of  doctrine  in  the  reign 
'of  Henry  VIH.' 

And  yet  Bishop  Fisher  and  Sir  Thomas  More  thought 
it  right  to  suffer  death  rather  than  admit  what  they  con- 
sidered the  new  doctrine  concerning  the  King's  supremacy  ! 
Sir  Thomas  More  tells  us  that  he  spent  years  in  the  exa- 
mination of  this  question,  and  came  to  the  conclusion 
that  the  doctrine  to  which  he  was  required  to  subscribe 
was  a  departure  from  the  teaching  of  the  Catholic  Church. 
Bishop  Fisher  was  acknowledged  all  over  the  Continent 
to  be  the  most  learned  and  the  holiest  bishop  in  Eng- 
land. And  no  sooner  did  Bishop  Fisher  see  (what  he  did 
not  perceive  at  first)  that  the  king  was  changing  the  doc- 
trine which  lay  at  the  root  of  Church  government,  than 
he  refused  to  subscribe,  and  won  his  martyr's  crown. 

Sir  Thomas  More  said  :  '  Though  I  would  not  deny' 
{i.e.  refuse) '  to  swear  to  the  succession,  yet  unto  that  oath 
'that  was  there  offered  me,  I  could  not  swear,  without 
'the  jeoparding  of  my  soul  to  eternal  damnation.' 

Archbishop  Cranmer,  indeed,  wanted  an  oath  to  be 

I  2 


Ii6   Henry  ]' I  I  I.,  the  Ecclesiastical  Politician 


administered  to  Bishop  Fisher  and  Sir  Thomas  More, 
which  would  not  contravene  their  rehgious  conviction  as 
to  the  authority  of  the  See  of  Rome,  and  the  exact  nature 
of  this  oath  might  be  suppressed,  so  that  the  pubUc  would 
hear  only  that  they  had  signed,  and  would  not  know  what 
they  had  signed.  The  evidence  for  this  duplicity  is  to 
be  found  in  Bridgett's  '  Life  of  Blessed  John  Fisher,' 
p.  277. 

All  this  is  clear  proof  that  the  most  saintly  bishop  of 
the  day,  and  the  most  saintly  layman  known  to  English 
history,  agreed  in  considering  that  Henr)''s  proposal  was 
not  only  a  change,  but  a  vital  change,  in  the  doctrine  of 
the  Church. 

Archbishop  Laud  says,  in  a  formal  letter  to  the  Duke  of 
Buckingham,  signed  by  himself,  the  Bishop  of  Rochester, 
and  the  Bishop  of  Oxford,  that '  when  the  clergy  submitted 
'themselves  in  the  time  of  Henry  VIIL,  the  submis- 
^  sion  was  so  made  that  if  any  difference,  doctrinal  or  other, 
'  fell  in  the  Church,  the  King  and  the  Bishops  were  to  be 
'  judges  of  it  in  a  National  Synod  or  Convocation  :  the 
'  King  first  giving  leave,  under  his  Broad  Seal,  to  handle 
'  the  points  in  difference.'  ('  Laud's  Works,'  vol.  vi.)  This 
was  a  radical  change  in  the  doctrine  which  concerned  the 
mode  of  guarding  the  Faith.  It  was  substituting  a  rela- 
tion between  the  civil  and  ecclesiastical  powers,  which 
was  the  cause  of  most  of  the  troubles  in  the  Eastern 
Church  of  the  4th  and  5th  centuries.  It  left  the  helm  of 
the  ship,  not  in  S.  Peter's,  but  in  the  king's  hands.  It 
led  to  a  loss  of  all  belief  in  sacramental  truth.  The  king, 
as  Protector  of  the  Church,  separate  from  the  See  of 
S.  Peter,  meant,  as  the  event  proved,  liberty  to  teach 
error,  without  the  countervailing  check  of  intercommunion 
with  the  rest  of  the  Catholic  world. 

When  the  king  had  the  question  put  to  Cranmer 
'whether  in   the  New  Testament   be   required  any 


Henry  VIII.,  tJie  Ecclesiastical  Politician  117 


'consecration  of  a  bishop  or  priest,  or  only  appoint- 
'  ing  to  the  office  be  sufficient  ?  '  and  Cranmer  rephed, 
'  In  the  New  Testament  he  that  is  appointed  to  be  a 
'  bishop  or  a  priest  needeth  no  consecration  by  the  Scrip- 
*ture,  for  election  or  appointment  thereto  is  sufficient,' 
we  may  well  believe  that  Cranmer  did  not  really  hold 
so  monstrous  a  doctrine  as  of  faith  ;  but  that  he  was 
cloaking  his  real  sentiments  and  conforming  his  judgments 
to  what  he  knew,  or  expected,  to  be  that  of  the  king. 
But  that  was  precisely  the  situation.  A  doctrine  had  en- 
tered into  the  Church  of  England  which  was  destined  to 
shape  its  future  :  eventually  the  whole  Elizabethan  set- 
tlement hung  on  it  :  and  the  Church  of  England  is  what 
she  is  by  reason  of  that  doctrine.  That  doctrine  was  suc- 
cinctly expressed  by  Bishop  Van  Mildert  in  the  House 
of  Lords  on  an  important  occasion  when,  after  quoting 
the  judgment  of  one  of  the  greatest  of  Anglican  divines 
(Bishop  Horsley),  he  said,  '  Now  it  is  manifest,  my  lords, 
'  this  latter  power  (jurisdiction),  though  spiritual  in  its  pur- 
*pose  and  effects,  cannot  be  exercised  by  any  other  autho- 

*  rity  than  that  of  the  State.  The  true  line  of  distinction  I 
'  apprehend  to  be  this — spiritual  functions  belong  exclu- 

*  sively  to  the  Church  ;  spiritual  jurisdiction  belongs  to  the 
'  State  as  allied  to  the  Church,  and  although  exercised 
'  by  the  Church  is  derived  from  the  State.' '  Now  compare 
this  with  the  oath  taken  by  every  English  bishop  pre- 
viously to  1534. 

'  I  will  be  faithful  and  obedient  to  Blessed  Peter  and 

*  the  holy  Apostolic  Roman  Church.  ...  I  will  take  care 

*  to  defend,  preserve,  increase,  and  promote  the  rights, 
'  honours,  privileges,  and  authority  of  the  Roman  Church, 
'our  lord  the  Pope,  and  his  successors.' 

The  words  'obedient  to  blessed  Peter,'  express  a 
fundamental  doctrine — whether  true  or  false. 

'  Hansard,  2nd  Series,  vol,  xiii,  col.  696, 


Il8    HenTj  VIII.,  tlie  Ecclesiastical  Politician 

But  there  is  another  fact  which  seems  of  itself  conclu- 
sive. In  1 52 1,  Henry  VIII.  wrote  in  favour  of  Papal  Supre- 
macy as  the  received  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  England, 
as  having  been  the  received  doctrine  of  the  Church  from 
the  beginning,  and  of  the  Church  of  England  as  part 
of  the  Catholic  Church.  In  1533  Henry  told  the  Papal 
Nuncio  that  he  had  'studied  better,'  and  changed  his 
mind.' 

Two  of  the  most  competent  critics  on  this  subject 
that  England  has  produced  tell  us  exactly  the  same. 
Mr.  Brewer,  an  Anglican  clergyman,  says  :  '  Opposition 
'  to  Papal  authority  was  familiar  to  men  ;  but  a  spiritual 
'  supremacy,  an  ecclesiastical  headship,  as  it  separated 
'  Henr}^  VIIL  from  his  predecessors  by  an  immeasurable 
'  interval,  so  it  was  without  precedent  and  at  variance  with 
'  all  tradition  .  .  .  the  wisest  could  hardly  catch  a  glimpse 
'  at  its  profound  significance.'  (Introduction,  vol.  i.  p.  107.) 
Mr.  Gairdner  writes  that  the  period  from  January  to  July, 
1535,  '  is  a  very  marked  period  in  the  history  of  the  reign 
'  — the  very  crisis  of  royal  supremacy,  and  of  a  totally 
'new  order  in  the  Church.'  (Preface  to  vol.  viii.  p.  i.) 
Here  are  two  witnesses,  neither  of  them  members  of  the 
Catholic  Church.  They  speak  simply  as  historians,  with 
knowledge  such  as  few  would  claim  concerning  the  reign 
of  Henry  VIII.  ;  and  they  call  his  new  relationship  to 
the  Church,  '  A  headship  .  .  .  without  precedent,  and  at 
'variance  with  all  tradition ' — '  a  totally  new  order  in  the 
'  Church.' 

It  is  certain  that  throughout  the  history  of  the 
English  Church,  the  authority  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome 
had  been  acknowledged  as  of  Divine  institution.  It  is 
easy  to  quote  instances  in  which  kings  sought  to  change 
the  boundary  line  between  the  temporal  and  the  spiritual 

'  See  letter  of  Chapuys,  Spanish  Calendars,  iv.  1057,  quoted  in 
Bridgelt's  Life  of  Bishop  Fisher. 


Henry  I  I  I.,  the  Ecclesiastical  Politician  Tig 


of  Anglican- 
ism,' p.  34. 


jurisdiction,  between  their  own  authority  and  that  of  the 
Pope  :  it  is  impossible  to  produce  a  single  instance  in 
which  the  authority  of  the  latter  was  formally  denied. 
To  be  restive  under  authority  is  not  to  deny  the  exist- 
ence of  the  authority  ;  to  say  '  You  are  master  only  thus 
'  far  :  here  my  dominion  begins,'  is  to  admit  that  there  is  a 
twofold  jurisdiction.  This  principle  was  so  engrained  in 
the  English  constitution  that  it  was  difficult  at  once  to 
eradicate  its  expression  from  the  statute-books  of  Eng- 
land. Archbishop  Bancroft  and  his  suffragans  noted  See  F'. 
this  in  their  demand  for  a  change  in  the  wording  of  the  Imllh  s 
ancient  form  of  Prohibition.  Before  the  Reformation,  Amlqutfy 
the  temporal  jurisdiction  defended  itself  from  encroach- 
ments on  the  part  of  the  spiritual  authority  by  writs  of 
Prohibition,  restraining  the  exercise  of  spiritual  jurisdic- 
tion within  its  proper  limits,  as  it  conceived  those  limits. 
To  these  writs  temporal  penalties  were  attached.  The 
spiritual  power,  emanating  from  the  See  of  S.  Peter  acted 
by  excommunication  in  case  of  encroachments  on  the  part 
of  the  temporal  authority.  But  the  spiritual  authority, 
the  spiritual  jurisdiction,  had  been  assumed  by  the  king. 
Accordingly  Archbishop  Bancroft  and  the  bishops  of  his 
province,  plead  thus  :  '  Concerning  the  form  of  Prohi- 
'  bitions,  forasmuch  as  both  the  ecclesiastical  and  temporal 
'■jurisdictions  be  now  united  in  his  Majesty  (James  I.), 
'which  were  heretofore  de  facto,  though  not  de  jure''  (here 
he  denies  the  right  of  S.  Peter's  successor  to  their  obe- 
dience) '  derived  from  several  heads,  we  desire  to  be 
'  satisfied  by  the  judges — whether  as  the  case  nowstandeth, 
'  the  former  manner  of  Prohibitions  heretofore  used  im- 
'  porting  an  ecclesiastical  court  to  be  aliiid  a  foro  regio, 
'  and  the  ecclesiastical  law  not  to  be  legem  terra,  and  the 
'proceedings  in  those  courts  to  be  contra  coronam  et 
'  dignitatem  regiain,  may  7ioiv  without  offence  and  deroga- 
'  tion  of  the  King's  ecclesiastical  prerogative  be  continued, 


120   Henry  VIII.,  the  Ecclesiastical  Politician 

'  as  though  either  of  the  said  jurisdictions  remained  now 
'  so  distinguished  and  revered  as  they  were  before,  or  that 
'  the  law  ecclesiastical,  which  we  put  in  execution,  were 
'  not  the  King's  and  the  realm's  ecclesiastical  laws,  aswell 
'  as  the  temporal  laws.' 

Here  there  is  a  clear  expression  of  radical  change. 
It  was  not  a  question  merely  of  giving  legal  effect  to  the 
decisions  of  the  Church,  but  something  far  beyond  this. 
This  always  existed  ;  but  here  a  change  is  spoken  of. 
And  how  radical  the  change  was  may  be  gathered  from 
a  letter  of  Edward  III.  to  Benedict  XII.  (a.d.  1337),  in 
which  he  is  protesting  against  an  appeal  made  direct  to 
Rome  over  the  head  of  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury. 
It  is  the  directness  of  the  appeal,  ignoring  the  Court  of 
Canterbur)'  as  a  court  of  first  instance,  against  which  the 
king  protests.  He  says  :  '  The  Apostolic  See,  although  it 
'  has  been  divinely  established  in  the  plenitude  of  power, 
'  is  not  accustomed  to  take  away  the  right  and  the  juris- 
'  diction  of  inferior  prelates  called  to  a  participation  of  its 
'care,  nor  to  reserve,  without  legitimate  reasons,  to  the 
'  examination  of  the  Apostolic  See,  causes  which  ought  to 
'  be  heard  in  the  localities.'  There  are,  then,  such  things 
as  legitimate  reasons  for  an  appeal  straight  to  Rome, 
whose  power  is  of  Divine  institution.  Between  this  and 
Henry  VIII. 's  doctrine  there  is  no  'continuity.'  And 
to  come  further  down  in  time,  where  is  the  continuity 
between  the  doctrine  of  Henry  VHI.  and  that  of  Henry 
VI.  ?  Henr)'  VI.  protests  against  the  Council  of  Basle 
assuming  a  superior  position  to  the  Pope.  And  on  what 
grounds  does  he  protest  ?  On  the  ground  that  the  Papacy, 
with  its  rights  of  jurisdiction,  is  of  Divine  institution. 
Addressing  the  bishops  as  '  Reverend  Fathers  '  he  says  : 
'  But  since  between  you  and  the  undoubted  Vicar  of 
'  Christ,  who  is  supported  by  the  adherence  of  the  cardinals 
'  of  the  Roman  Church  and  no  small  portion  of  Christians, 


Henry  VIII.,  the  Ecclesiastical  Politician    1 2 1 

'  the  question  is  not  one  of  fact,  but  of  right  divine  and 
'  ecclesiastical,  not  so  easily  will  this  fever,  this  sickness 
'  penetrating,  so  to  speak,  to  the  very  7?iarrow  of  the 
'  Christian  laiv,  receive  its  cure  and  removal  from  the 
'judgment  of  the  wise.' 

Clearly  Henry  VIII. 's  conduct  would  have  been  re- 
garded by  Henry  VI.  as  '  penetrating  to  the  very  marrow 
of  the  Christian  law,'  contravening  a  'right  divine.' 

Let  us  pass  from  kings  to  bishops.  S.  Anselm, 
Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  thus  addresses  the  bishops 
who  were  under  the  king's  influence  :  '  He  says  also  to 
'  all  the  Apostles  alike,  "  He  that  heareth  you,  heareth 
'  "  Me ;  and  he  that  despiseth  you,  despiseth  Me ;  and  he 
'  "  that  toucheth  you,  toucheth  the  apple  of  Mine  eye."  As 
'  we  know  these  words  to  have  been  addressed  primarily 
'  to  Blessed  Peter,  and  in  him  to  the  other  Apostles,  so 
'  we  hold  them  to  have  been  said  primarily  to  the  Vicar 
'  of  Blessed  Peter,  and  through  him  to  the  other  bishops, 
'  who  hold  the  place  of  the  Apostles  :  not  to  any  emperor, 
'  or  any  king,  or  duke,  or  count  .  .  .  Wherefore  let  all 
'  likewise  know,  that  in  the  things  of  God  I  will  render 
'  obedience  to  the  Vicar  of  Blessed  Peter ;  in  the  things 
'  which  of  right  belong  to  the  earthly  dignity  of  my  Lord 
'the  King  I  will  give  faithful  counsel  and  assistance 
'  according  to  my  power.'  Where  is  the  '  continuity '  of 
doctrine  between  S.  Anselm's  teaching  and  that  of 
Archbishop  Cranmer  ?  ' 

But  perhaps  the  most  pertinent  instance  of  all  is  to 
be  found  in  the  conduct  and  words  of  the  famous  Bishop 
of  Lincoln,  Robert  Grosseteste.  He  refused  to  induct 
a  nominee  of  the  reigning  Pontiff,  on  the  ground  that  he 

'  See  also  Lib.  iv.  Ep.  xiii.  '  It  is  certain  that  he  who  does 
'  not  obey  the  ordinances  of  the  Roman  Pontift"  ...  is  disobedient 
'  to  the  Apostle  Peter  .  .  .  nor  is  he  of  that  flock  which  was  given 
'to  him  (Peter)  by  God.' 


122    Henry  VIII.,  tJic  Ecclesiastical  Politician 


was  totally  unfit.  But  in  doing  this  he  is  careful  to  dis- 
tinguish his  act  from  that  of  one  who  denies  the  authority 
which  in  a  particular  instance  he  forthwith  resists.  He 
says  that  to  '  the  Most  Holy  Apostolic  See  all  power  has 
'been  entrusted  for  edification,  not  destruction,  by  the 
'  Holy  of  Holies,  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.'  He  is  therefore 
dealing  with  a  Divine  institution.  And  in  another  letter 
he  says  that  '  to  the  Holy  Roman  Church  is  due,  from 
'  every  son  of  the  Church,  the  most  devoted  obedience, 
'  the  most  reverential  veneration,  the  most  fervent  love,  the 
'most  submissive  fear.'  There  is  no  continuity  between 
this  teaching  and  the  doctrine  of  Henry  VHI.,  and  the 
Convocation  of  1534.  Henry  VI.  says  that,  'from  the 
'  very  cradle  of  the  Christian  religion,  his  authority  {i.e. 
'the  Pope's)  has  been  regarded  as  most  manifest,  and 
'  the  plenitude  of  his  power  reverenced  with  all  possible 
'veneration.'  Henry  VHI.  took  the  Papal  jurisdiction 
into  his  own  hands,  on  the  ground  that  jurisdiction 
belonged  to  the  king.  (There  was  not  the  most  distant 
notion  that  jurisdiction  and  orders  went  together.  This 
confused  conception  of  authority  was  an  after-invention.) 
A  new  prerogative  was  added  to  the  Crown,  and  the 
right  to  annex  it  was  based  upon  a  new  doctrine. 

There  was,  then,  a  fundamental  change  of  doctrine 
concerning  the  government  of  the  Church  ;  and  the 
government  of  the  Church  involves  the  guardianship  of 
the  Faith.  It  would  be  easy  to  point  out  that  a  great 
deal  of  informal  change  of  doctrine  in  other  respects 
was  taking  place  in  Henry's  reign  ;  so  that  Ridley  soon 
after  learnt  to  say,  '  The  Primitive  Church  did  never  use 
'  any  altar  ; '  and  Latimer,  '  Minister  is  a  more  fit  name 
'  than  priest,  for  that  the  name  of  priest  importeth  sacrifice; ' 
and  Ridley,  not  so  many  years  after,  could  actually  give 
an  Episcopal  injunction  that  all  altars  should  be  destroyed. 
But  the  change  concerning  jurisdiction  is  sufficient.  As 


Hairy  VIII.,  the  Ecclesiastical  Politician  123 


was  said  at  the  time,  it  involved  a  new  reading  of  '  Feed 
'my  sheep,'  as  though  our  Lord  committed  His  sheep  to 
the  king  and  not  to  S.  Peter.  In  consequence  of  this 
interpretation  of  Holy  Scripture,  Cranmer  and  his 
fellows  took  out  a  commission  from  Henry  VHI.  to 
discharge  their  Episcopal  functions  ;  and  they  held  (and 
showed  by  their  first  act  on  Edward  VI. 's  accession  how 
firmly  they  held  it)  that  their  jurisdiction  was  such  that 
'  the  king  might  recall  it,  and  strike  their  character  dead  coiiler,  vol. 
'when  he  pleased.'  v.pt.a'.bk. 

If  this  was  not  change  of  doctrine  it  is  hard  to  say 
what  would  constitute  change.  It  was,  as  I  have  said, 
the  change  in  the  doctrine,  affecting  the  very  idea  of  the 
unity  and  authority  of  the  Church,  that  led  to  all  the 
depreciation  of  the  Sacraments  in  the  following  reign. 
The  Church  could  not  be  one  if  there  were  such 
things  as  National  Churches  with  a  king  in  the  position 
that  Henry  and  Elizabeth  assumed.  Intercourse  between 
Churches  must  then  be  carried  on  between  kings  and 
queens,  not  between  patriarchs,  as  of  old  ;  and  each 
'Sovereign  Majesty'  would  have  the  fatal  power  of 
'tuning  the  pulpits,'  as  Elizabeth  boasted  of  doing.  The 
authority  of  the  Church  was,  in  fact,  gone.  All  sense 
of  authority  soon  died  out,  except  the  authority  of  the 
reigning  sovereign  ;  so  that  Elizabeth  could  inform  the 
Spanish  ambassador  as  to  the  religion  she  meant  to 
have  in  England.  She  told  him  it  would  not  be  precisely 
the  Confession  of  Augsburg  ; '  it  would  be  something  like 
it  and  yet  different  ;  and  in  1573  Bishop  Pilkington  wrote 
to  inform  his  friend  Gualter,  on  the  Continent  :  '  We 
'  endure  many  things  against  our  inclination,  and  groan 
'under  them,  which,  if  we  wished  ever  so  much,  no 

'  De  Feria  to  Philip  II.  April  29,  1559.  She  said  also,  'she 
'believed  almost  as  Catholics  believed.' — Froude's  Hist.  vol.  vii. 
p.  82, 


1 24   Hcjii-y  VIII.,  the  Ecclesiastical  Politician 


cf.  Corr.  of 
Parker, 
cccxh-iil. 
Archbishop 
Parker  to 
Lord  Burgh- 
ley,  p.  454  ; 
Parker 
Society  edit. 
1833. 


'entreaty  could  remove.  We  are  under  authority,  and 
'  cannot  make  any  innovation  without  the  sanction  of  the 
'Queen,  or  abrogate  anything  without  the  authority  of 
'  the  Laws.'  He  himself  would  probably  have  wished 
the  religion  of  England  to  be  that  of  the  Confession  of 
Augsburg,  pure  and  simple  ;  but  Elizabeth  was  deter- 
mined, as  the  author  of  the  '  Roman  Question '  puts  it, 
to  'establish  a  High  Church  line  for  the  Church  of 
'England'  (p.  19),  something  like  the  Confession  of 
Augsburg,  but  still  '  different  from  it.'  Her  bishops  had 
some  of  them  spent  a  while  on  the  Continent,  and  desiring 
to  communicate  with  the  foreign  Protestants  found  that 
they  must  sign  that  Confession,  '  which,  accordingly,  they 
'  did.'  Now  all  this  high-handed  action  of  Elizabeth  (such 
that  Archbishop  Parker  referred  to  her  Majesty  and 
Lord  Burghley  '  whether  her  Majesty  and  you  will  have 
'  any  archbishop  or  bishops,  or  how  you  will  have  them 
'ordered')  was  the  result  of  that  vital  change  in  one 
doctrine  in  Henr)'  VIH.'s  reign  ;  and  in  consequence  of 
this  the  whole  edifice  of  sacramental  doctrine  began  to 
totter  ;  its  corner-stone  was  being  removed ;  it  was  break- 
ing off  from  the  rock,  to  toss  about  on  the  sea.  How  was 
it  that  this  new  doctrine,  which  henceforward  formed  a 
distinctive  mark  of  the  Church  of  England,  was  introduced  ? 

"WTiat  was  the  propelling  cause  of  this  tremendous 
change  ?  The  Catholic  contention  is  that  Henr)-  VIII., 
to  forward  his  own  %"ile  purposes  of  greed  and  lust, 
forced  it  on  the  clerg}-  and  people.  Hence  the  position 
as  eventually  accepted  was  Erastian,  and  the  religious 
body  lost  its  communion  with  the  Catholic  world.  She 
developed  a  brood  of  heresies  and  sects,  in  the  midst  of 
which  she  floated  down  the  stream,  striking  her  sides 
against  the  craft  around  her,  and  stricken  and  propelled 
by  them,  without  the  standard  of  the  Catholic  Faith,  or 
the  pilot  of  the  Catholic  world. 


Henry  VIII.,  the  Ecclesiastical  Politician  125 

Neither  East  nor  West  any  longer  saluted  her  as  be- 
longing to  their  common  Lord.  She  was  a  craft  on  her 
own  line,  ignored  by  the  schismatic  East,  and  con- 
demned by  the  entire  West. 

The  High  Anglican  contention  is,  on  the  other  hand, 
that  she  remained  the  same  religious  body,  having  simply 
cleaned  her  face.  Her  exterior  was  changed,  but  her 
inner  self  remained  the  same.  The  change  of  govern- 
ment that  took  place  was,  they  say,  a  return  to  the  more 
ancient  regime  of  the  Church.  She  now  became  primi- 
tive, instead  of  mediseval.  Her  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction 
flowed  from  the  metropolitical  authority  of  the  see  of 
Canterbury,  originally  bestowed  upon  it  by  the  Patriarch 
of  the  West.  It  was,  they  say,  so  bestowed  that  he  could 
not  alienate  his  gift.  He  could  not  do  as  S.  Cyprian  en- 
treated the  Pope  S.  Stephen  to  do,  viz.  depose  the  Bishop 
of  Aries,  and  substitute  another,  and  notify  to  him  (S. 
Cyprian)  with  whom  he  should  hold  communion.  This 
change  of  jurisdiction  (we  are  told)  was  due  to  a  desire 
on  the  part  of  the  clergy  to  be  free  from  the  bondage  of 
Rome  ;  and  they  accordingly  solemnly  and  formally  gave 
their  sanction  to  the  new  adjustment.  There  was  nothing 
in  these  relations  to  the  See  of  Rome  which  rested  on 
Divine  appointment  ;  and  what  bishops  gave,  bishops 
could  take  away.  Bishops  it  is  said,  originally  '  gave  '  to 
Rome  her  pre-eminence,  and  bishops  therefore,  could  de- 
prive her  of  it.  Consequently,  when  those  bishops  who, 
for  the  purposes  of  consecration,  had  sworn  a  solemn 
oath  to  obey  the  Bishop  of  Rome  as  the  divinely-ap- 
pointed successor  of  S.  Peter  in  the  supreme  government 
of  the  Church,  transferred  their  allegiance  to  Henry  VHL, 
they  acted  within  their  rights.  What  need  to  consult  the 
rest  of  the  Catholic  Church  ?  They  could  act  on  their 
own  responsibility  as  a  separate  body,  and  make  them- 
selves into  a  National  Church,  independent  of  the  rest 


ij6   Henry  VIII.,  the  Ecclesiastical  Politician 

of  the  Catholic  world — autonomous,  primitive  in  their 
more  simple  sacraments,  as  thej-  soon  became,  and 
Catholic  in  their  willingness  to  be  in  communion  with 
the  rest  of  the  Christian  Episcopate  only  on  their  own 
terms.  This  assertion  of  their  independence  was  due,  we 
are  told,  to  a  gro%ving  sense  of  the  unprofitableness  of 
their  connection  with  Rome.  They  had  long  been  feeling 
their  way,  and  when  the  opportunity  occurred,  and  Henrj-, 
from  different  and  less  praiseworthy  motives,  was  looking 
also  towards  independence  of  the  Holy  See,  they  moved 
along  the  same  lines  with  different  aims,  and  broke,  with 
good  conscience,  the  solemn  oath  of  obedience  to  the 
See  of  S.  Peter,  which  they  had  taken  in  the  hour  of 
their  consecration.  They  were,  therefore,  not  perjured 
rebels,  nor  wilful  schismatics.  They  initiated  a  wholesome 
change,  which  directed  the  wealth  of  the  English  sees  and 
religious  houses  from  foreign  purposes  to  the  more  imme- 
diate needs  of  the  Church  at  home. 

Such  is  the  High  Church  Anghcan  contention. 

But  of  course  it  is  felt  to  be  \-ital  to  the  whole  con- 
tention that  some  proof  should  be  forthcoming,  which 
will  place  it  beyond  doubt  that  the  clergy-  of  the  Church 
of  England  did,  of  themselves,  and  not  merely  as  reluc- 
tant tools,  sever  their  cormection  with  the  Apostolic  See. 

A  definite  proof  has  accordingly  been  of  late  widely 
adopted.  It  appears  in  Canon  Dixon's  '  Histor)-  of  the 
'  Church  of  England,'  which  the  author  of  the  '  Roman 
'  Question '  calls  the  '  latest  and  the  most  thorough  ac- 
'  count  of  those  eventful  times,'  i.e.  of  the  Reformation 
period  (p.  15).  It  is  relied  on  by  Mr.  Gore,  in  his  book 
called  '  Roman  Catholic  Claims,'  tst  edition,  and  it  is  the 
point  d'appui  of  my  critic,  the  author  of  the  'Roman 
'  Question.' 

He  holds  that  the  cause  of  the  rupture  between 
England  and  Rome  was  not  '  Heruy's  cruel  and  shamef al 


Henry  VIII.,  the  Ecclesiastical  Politician  127 


'  dealings  in  the  matter  of  the  divorce,  nor  the  greed  that 
'devoured  Church  property.'  It  was  the  mercenary 
dealings  of  the  Roman  Court  that  brought  it  about — in 
short,  the  question  of  annates  and  other  monetary 
transactions.  His  chapter  on  '  the  separation  of  England 
'  from  Rome  '  is  really  built  upon  this  supposition.  The 
aversion  to  paying  annates  was,  he  says,  '  the  immediate 
'propelling  cause  of  the  Reformation'  (p.  17).  The 
clergy  wished  them  no  longer  to  be  paid  to  Rome.  On 
^is  account  they  'indeed  had  themselves  suggested  a 
'withdrawal  from  its  dominions'  (p.  71).  'It  was,'  he 
says  elsewhere,  '  the  immediate  cause  of  the  Reformation 
'in  England'  (p.  83).  And  it  is  in  the  same  chapter  that 
he  says,  somewhat  sarcastically,  '  I  suppose  our  modern 
'  converts  to  Rome  ...  do  not  trouble  themselves  with 
'  facts  '  (p.  88). 

Here,  then,  we  are  at  the  very  core  of  the  subject. 
What  is  the  fact  which  settles  the  question  ?  Catholics 
say  Henry  VIII.  dragooned  the  clergy  into  acting  as 
they  did.  Anglicans  maintain  that  the  clergy  acted 
from  a  previously  formed  desire  to  move  in  the  same 
direction.  Where  are  the  facts  to  prove  the  Anglican 
contention  ? 

Canon  Dixon,  Mr.  Gore,  and  the  author  of  the 
'  Roman  Question '  have  rested  this  part  of  their  case 
on  a  certain  petition  from  Convocation.  If  the  petition 
could  be  proved  to  be  such,  it  would  certainly  be  an 
important  piece  of  evidence. 

But  Convocation  never  did  present  such  a  petition. 
Why  did  not  these  writers  consult  the  journal  of  Con- 
vocation ?  There  is  no  record  there  of  any  such  petition. 
There  is  no  statement  on  the  document  itself  that  it  had 
any  connection  whatsoever  with  Convocation.  Such  a 
petition  contravenes  all  the  evidence  we  have  of  the 
mind  of  Convocation  on  this  subject,  and  there  is  no 


128    Henry  VIII.,  the  Ecclesiastical  Politician 


fragment,  not  an  iota,  of  evidence  to  the  effect  that  the 
said  jxiper  was  ever  written  by  any  member  of  Convoca- 
tion. \\'hat  are  we  to  think  about  '  troubhng  themselves 
'  with  facts  '  ? 

Nay  more,  it  is  almost  inconceivable  that  Convoca- 
tion should  have  presented  such  a  document.  Look  at 
the  internal  evidence.  Convocation  must  have  known 
something  about  the  history  of  the  great  schism.  Could 
they,  then,  have  quoted,  as  this  paper  does,  the  case  of 
the  French  king  (who,  of  course,  was  Charles  VI.)  with- 
drawing his  allegiance  from  Benedict  XIII.  (who,  of 
course,  was  the  Antipope,  Peter  de  Luna),  in  order  to 
transfer  it  to  the  true  Pope,  as  a  '  like  case '  ?  The 
blunder  could  hardly  have  come  from  the  lips  of  Con- 
vocation. Indeed,  the  statement,  as  it  continues,  is  quite 
inaccurate. 

On  what  foundation,  then,  are  we  here  resting  ?  It 
has  to  be  proved  that  the  clergy  of  the  realm  were 
desirous  to  check  the  flow  of  money  to  the  Roman 
coffers,  and  that  for  that  reason  they  were  willing — nay, 
desirous,  indeed  spontaneously  anxious — to  forswear  their 
allegiance  to  the  Apostolic  See.  But  into  whose  hands 
was  the  money  to  go  ?  Into  Henr)-'s.  The  annates  were 
to  be  paid  to  him.  Is  it  likely  they  were  so  anxious  for 
this  ? 

But  there  is  a  fact  of  really  greater  importance  still, 
which  has  been  strangely  overlooked  by  Mr.  Gladstone, 
Canon  Dixon,  Mr.  Gore,  and  the  author  of  the  '  Roman 
Question.' ' 

It  is  this  :  the  bishops  opposed  the  Bill !  Now  what 
are  we  to  think  of  all  this  so-called  histor}-  ?    Of  course, 

'  Mr.  Green  is  more  careful  in  his  statement,  though  he,  too, 
falls  into  the  error  of  supposing  that  the  said  document  was  a 
petition  from  Convocation.  He  says,  '  Convocation  was  made,  &c.,' 
and  so  differs  from  the  above  writers.    Hist.  p.  329. 


Henry  VIII.,  the  Ecclesiastical  Politician  129 


what  my  critic,  the  author  of  the  '  Roman  Question,' says 
is  perfectly  untrue,  in  the  sense  in  which  he  interprets  it, 
about  what  one  of  high  consideration  in  the  Roman 
Communion  is  reported  to  have  said,  a  propos  of  the 
V atican  Council,  viz.  '  Thank  God,  we  have  done  with 
'  history  ! '  He  meant,  of  course,  by  history,  the  perversion 
of  history  that  goes  by  that  sacred  name.  He  meant 
such  history  as  I  have  dealt  with  above. 

This  '  petition  of  Convocation ' — this  blundering, 
anonymous  paper  which  has  been  conjured  into  being  a 
petition  of  Convocation — is  of  such  importance  to  the 
argument  that  our  attention  is  drawn  to  it  again  and 
again.  We  are  told  '  it  is  impossible  not  to  read  between  <  Roman 
'the  lines  of  this  remonstrance  important  facts  as  to  the 
'  state  of  Church  feeling  at  the  time.'  '  Important  facts  ! ' 
and  '  this  remonstrance ! '  which  was  never  presented, 
and,  we  may  feel  sure,  was  never  written  by  any  member 
of  Convocation  ;  which  was,  if  anything,  an  intended  peti- 
tion from  Parliament,  and  which  dealt  with  a  Bill  'which 
was  opposed  by  the  bishops! 

And  in  the  face  of  this,  we  are  told  that  '  modern 
'  converts  to  Rome  do  not  trouble  themselves  about  facts ! ' 
The  author  then  quotes  a  passage  from  Canon  Creighton, 
which  is  contradicted  by  Mr.  Brewer,  who,  it  will  be 
admitted,  at  least  had  the  facts  before  his  eyes  in  his  long 
study  of  State  records  ;  and  he  repeats  the  absurd  idea  of 
the  Pope  having  offered  to  sanction  the  English  Prayer- 
book  of  1559 — a  notion  dear  to  many,  but  without  facts 
to  support  it,  as  Canon  Estcourt  has  shown  in  his  book  on 
Anglican  Orders.  Does  anyone  seriously  suppose  that 
any  Pope  that  ever  lived  would  have  sanctioned  that  Prayer- 
book  after  he  had  read  it  through  ?  Lord  Coke,  the  earliest 
authority  for  the  statement,  disavowed  every  sentence  'Biogr.  bh- 
of  his  charge,  in  which  the  allusion  to  this  supposed 
offer  of  the  Pope  occurs.    The  author,  in  his  concluding 

K 


1 30    Henty  VIII.,  the  Ecclesiastical  Politician 


paragraph,  says,  '  I  simply  desire  to  state  the  fact.'  I 
thoroughly  believe  it.  And  in  consequence  can  I  doubt 
that  he  will  withdraw  this  chapter  of  his  book  ?  For  the 
premiss  having  disappeared  from  the  region  of  fact,  on 
what  does  the  conclusion  rest  ? 

What,  then,  if  we  really  consult  facts,  was  the  secret  of 
this  revolution  in  the  teaching  of  the  Church  ?    It  was 
this.    Henry  stood  in  a  position  of  unparalleled  power. 
A  man  of  tremendous  will  and  unbridled  passions,  he 
cast  his  eye  on  forbidden  fruit,  and  through  the  disobedi- 
ence of  one,  many  were  ruined.    The  nobles  lay  at  his 
feet,  their  power  broken  by  the  wars  of  the  Roses  :  the 
single  power  that  could  bid  him  defiance  lay  in  those  holy 
cf.  Gasquet's  homes  of  prayer,  as  we  now  know  them  to  have  been,  in 
vuT'and     those  Centres  of  beneficent  energy,  into  which  the  people's 
th^  Monas-    confidence  threw  their  treasures,  as  safest  there,  or  as  a 

tenes.  '  ' 

passport  to  a  better  world.  These  centres  of  power  Henry 
proceeded,  by  vile,  systematic  calumny  and  almost  in- 
credible cruelty,  to  root  up  from  English  soil.  The  bishops 
and  clergy  were  ruined  by  a  single  stroke  of  almost  un- 
paralleled audacity,  and  lay  at  the  king's  mercy.  He  had 
subjected  them  all  to  the  penalties  of  a  prcemunire,  and 
insisted  on  their  buying  off  their  lives  by  an  enormous 
grant  of  money,  and  by  owning  him,  in  place  of  the  Pope, 
as  the  only  head  of  the  Church  under  Christ.  There 
are  deeds  which  may  be  done  in  the  face  of  day,  if  only 
they  are  done  with  sufiicient  speed  to  take  men  off  their 
guard.  Henry  struggled  with  Convocation,  until  Convo- 
cation lay,  maimed  and  crippled,  speechless  at  his  feet. 
It  resigned  its  right  to  meet  and  act  into  his  royal  hands, 
and  in  so  doing  it  sealed  its  doom.  The  greatest  of 
bishops  went  to  the  block ;  the  rest  did  that  which  they  had 
to  repent  of  doing.  Mr.  Gore  says  '  it  matters  not  whether 
'  they  repented  '  ('  Remarks,'  p.  7).  Surely  it  matters  thus 
far — their  repentance,  of  which  we  are  informed  afterwards. 


Henry  VIII.,  tJie  Ecclesiastical  Politician  131 


may  have  saved  the  souls  of  some  ;  and  it  saves  their 
acts  from  being  considered  their  spontaneous  and  mature 
conviction.' 

But  why  this  hot  haste  on  the  part  of  Henry  ?  One 
simple  fact  reveals  the  terrible  secret  of  his  importunity. 
It  sprang  from  his  relations  to  Anne  Boleyn.  This  was 
the  forbidden  fruit  which  he  had  already  tasted.  Within 
a  certain  number  of  months  Elizabeth  would  be  born. 
And  the  Holy  See  had  shown  its  hand  :  it  would  never 
consent  to  the  divorce  of  his  queen.  It  was,  therefore,  ne- 
cessary for  Henry's  purposes  that  all  ecclesiastical  matters 
should  be  settled  within  the  realm.  Cranmer,  a  man  who, 
under  the  old  regime,  would  never  have  sat  on  the  throne 
of  Canterbury — the  most  abject,  servile  tool  that  ever 
twisted  and  turned  to  the  winds  of  royal  caprice — was 
now  metropolitan.  With  no  time  to  lose — with  no  fear 
of  another  Fisher — the  Tudor  will  prevailed.  The  land 
was  plunged  into  schism,  but  Elizabeth's  legitimacy  was 
within  measurable  distance  of  being  secured. 

For  all  this  there  is  proofs  In  1529,  the  king's  orator 
at  Rome,  a  propos  of  the  divorce  question,  and  the  de- 
cision of  the  Pope  to  withdraw  the  cause  to  his  own 
cognisance,  threatened  his  Holiness  that  to  do  so  would 
involve  '  the  ruin  of  the  Church  and  the  loss  of  England 
'  and  France.'  The  French  ambassador  writes  :  '  The 
'  Duke  of  Norfolk  is  made  head  of  the  Council ;  in  his 

'  '  Of  the  learned  men  that  were  the  doers  thereof  {i.e.  the  Act 
of  .Submission  in  1534)  'so  many  as  were  dead,  before  they  died 
'  were  penitent,  and  cried  God  mercy  for  their  act ;  and  those  that 
'  do  live,  as  all  your  Lordships  do  know,  hath  openly  revoked  the 
'  same,  acknowledging  their  error.' — Bishop  of  Chester's  speech  be- 
fore Parliament  on  the  Supremacy  Bill  (Feb.  1 559).  Strype's  .,4««a/.r, 
vol.  i.  pt.  2,  p.  408.  Amongst  the  protesters  on  this  occasion  was 
Kitchen,  Bishop  of  Llandaff,  March  18,  1559. — H^'Ewni,'  Journal, 
1693,  pp.  23-25. 

^  See  Bridgetl's  Life  oj  Fisher. 

K  2 


132    Henry  VIIL,  the  Ecclesiastical  Politician 


'  absence,  the  Duke  of  Suffolk  ;  above  all  is  Mademoiselle 
'  Anne.' 

Ludovico  Falieri,  the  Venetian  ambassador,  and 
Sigismund  the  Mantuan  ambassador  at  Augsburg,  wrote 
to  their  respective  masters  about  the  arbitrary  proceedings 
of  the  king  with  his  bishops. 

His  placing  the  whole  body  of  the  clerg)-  under  the 
penalties  of  praemunire  for  having  acknowledged  the 
legatine  authority  is  matter  of  common  historj-.  What 
he  had  in  his  mind  seems  plain  enough,  as  from  what 
I  have  just  quoted,  so  from  what  Chapuys  writes  to  his 
Imperial  master  :  '  If  the  Pope  had  ordered  the  lady  to 
'  be  separated  from  the  king,  the  king  would  never  have 
'  pretended  to  claim  sovereignty  over  the  Church  :  for,  as 
'  far  as  I  can  understand,  she  and  her  father  have  been 
'  the  principal  cause  of  it  .  .  .  There  is  none  that  do  not 
'  blame  this  usurpation,  except  those  who  have  promoted 
'it.' 

The  archives  of  Vienna  contain  a  protest  from  the 
representatives  of  nearly  every  diocese  in  England 
against  the  new  form  of  sovereignt}-  over  the  Church,  in- 
cluding one  from  the  Dean  of  Arches  in  the  province  of 
Canterbury. 

Later  on  Chapuys  %%Tites  to  the  Emperor  :  '  Among 
'  other  things  contained  in  the  libel  exhibited  in  Parliament 
'  against  the  Pope's  authority,  it  is  expressed  that  no  one 
'  shall  appeal  from  here  to  Rome  on  any  matter,  temporal 
'  or  spiritual,  on  pain  of  confiscation  of  body  and  goods  as 
'  a  rebel — which  clause  directly  applies  to  the  queen.' 

In  the  same  life  of  Bishop  Fisher,  from  which  I 
have  selected  the  above,  occurs  what  the  author  calls 
'  a  glimpse  at  popular  feeling.'  A  gentleman's  servant, 
whilst  grooming  his  master's  horse  at  Cambridge,  falls 
to  quarrelling  with  the  ostler  about  the  Pope,  and  ends 
by  breaking  the  ostler's  head  with  a  faggot-stick  in 


Henry  VIII.,  the  Ecclesiastical  Politician  133 


his  over-zcal  for  the  successor  of  S.  Peter.  This  fiery 
disputant  tells  us  that  he  had  explained  to  the  ostler 
that  this  business  about  severance  from  the  Bishop  of 
Rome  'had  never  been  if  the  king  had  not  married 
'  Anne  Boleyn.'  And  since  the  ostler's  head  was  too  thick 
to  take  in  the  plain  truth,  he  broke  it. 

Such,  then,  was  the  propelling  cause  of  the  so-called 
Reformation.  As  for  any  spontaneous  desire  on  the  part 
of  the  clergy  to  break  with  the  Spiritual  Supremacy  of 
the  Holy  See,  there  is  no  evidence  of  it  to  be  found.  ^ 

No  ;  probably  there  never  was  such  a  conspiracy  of 
circumstances,  if  I  may  so  call  it,  as  that  which  enabled 
Henry  VIII.   to  substitute   his   own   for   the  Papal 
Supremacy.    The  silence  between  Rome  and  England 
through  the  vast  legatine  power  wielded  by  Wolsey,  dis- 
pensing with  the  frequent  calls  for  appeal  ;  the  broken 
power  of  the  nobility,  through  the  wars  of  the  Roses  ; 
the  impotence  of  Parliament,  not  yet  developed  so  as  to 
formulate  the  people's  wishes  ;  the  appearance  of  a  man 
like  Thomas  Cromwell,  destined  to  break  the  last  force 
that  could  resist  the  will  of  Henry,  by  the  shameless       p  Cas- 
dissolution  of  the  monasteries  ;  the  sudden  outburst  of  .'Henry 
unregulated,  unbalanced  learning  ;  the  intellectual  power 
and  adamantine  will  of  the  king — all  concurred  to  favour  leries.' 
the  inauguration  of  a  despotism  such  as  no  man  wielded 
before  in  England,  and  no  man  will  wield  again.  Satan 
held  high  rule  ;  and  he  revolutionised  the  religion  of  the 
land.    Two  things  seem  quite  certain  in  the  history  of 
the  change  :  first,  that  it  was  the  doing,  not  of  the  clergy, 
but  of  the  king;  secondly,  that  it  was  not  the  desire  see Brewers 
of  the  masses,  who  groaned  beneath  the  reign  of  terror  tio",'™'*"'^" 
which  had  set  in.    Parliament  was  but  an  instrument  of  yfj'/Y^ 
registering  Henry's  will  :  Convocation  was  overawed,  and  ■''^'S"-' 

'  This  has  been  alnmdantly  proved  in  the  'Alleged  Antiquity  of 
Anglicanism.    A  reply  to  Lord  Selborne,'  by  Sydney  F.  Smith. 


134    Henry  VIII.,  the  Ecclesiastical  Politician 

soon  reduced  to  a  nonentity,  and  a  crew  of  politicians 
came  on  to  the  scene,  who  hanged,  in  Edward's  reign,  in 
the  name  of  the  boy-king,  those  who  maintained  the 
CathoHc  Faith ;  and  in  Mary's  reign  the  selfsame  persons 
hung,  in  the  name  of  their  devout,  sickening,  gradually 
dying  queen,  those  who  maintained  the  Protestant 
heresy. 

Things  were  thus  ready  for  Elizabeth  to  settle  the 
future  of  the  Church  of  England,  and  on  May  21,  1559, 
Parkhurst  (afterwards  Elizabethan  Bishop  of  Norwich) 
writes  from  London  to  Bullinger  :  '  The  Queen  is  not 
'  willing  to  be  called  Head  of  the  Church,  altho'  the  title 
'  has  been  offered  her  ;  but  she  willingly  accepts  the  title 
'of  Governor,  w-hich  amounts  to  the  same  thing.  The 
'  Pope  is  again  driven  from  England,  to  the  great  regret  of 
'the  bishops  .  .  .  The  Mass  is  abolished.' ' 

'  '  At  present  she  calls  herself  governor — declining  the  higher 
'title,  that  she  may  give  it  to  her  husband  when  she  marries.' — De 
Quadra  to  the  Duke  of  Alva,  May  10,  1559. 


Elizabeth  and  her  Clergy 


135 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

ELIZABETH  AND  HER  CLERGY. 

Let  us  see  how  the  Mass  was  aboHshed.  It  was  easily 
extruded  from  the  formularies  of  the  English  Church,  in 
her  Prayer-book  and  Articles,  and  from  the  teaching  of 
the  living  Church,  by  the  appointment  of  bishops,  who 
were  true  enough  to  the  new  Creed,  who  insisted  on  every 
altar  in  their  dioceses  being  destroyed,  and  the  sacrificial 
vestments,  and  various  vessels  and  implements  of  Divine 
service,  being  sold  or  broken  up.  The  clearance  of  nearly 
every  holy  instrument  of  the  Divine  Sacrifice,  throughout 
the  land,  within  a  few  years,  was  wonderful. 

But  how  was  the  old  religion  so  completely,  or  almost 
completely,  abolished  from  the  land? 

By  violence  and  fraud. 

The  author  of  the  '  Roman  Question  '  protests  against 
those  priests  and  other  Catholics,  who  were  put  to  death 
in  Elizabeth's  reign,  being  called  '  martyrs  for  the  faith.' 
Speaking  of  the  penal  statutes  against  Catholics,  he  says  : 
'They  who  suffered  under  those  statutes  were  no  doubt 
'brave  devotees,  but  they  suffered  for  political  offences 
'  which  could  not  but  involve  punishment,  not  in  the  least 
'  for  their  "faith,"  except  so  far  as  their  faith  animated  them 
'to  subvert  the  constitution  of  their  country,  in  order  to 
'  establish  an  authority  which  the  country  had  rejected. 
'What  one  marvels  at  is  the  absolute  disregard  of  historic 
'  truth,  and  the  misrepresentation  of  facts,  that  is  so  singu- 


136 


ElizabctJi  and  her  Clergy 


'larly  manifest  in  so  sacred  a  transaction,'  i.e.  of  their 
beatification  (p.  113). 

As  one  who  thoroughly  adopts  the  position,  which 
this  writer  characterises  as  '  absolute  disregard  of  historic 
'truth,'  and  is  prepared  to  defend  it  from  State  papers 
and  other  public  documents  of  Elizabeth's  reign,  I  would 
ask  this  simple  question  : — Let  us  suppose  the  case  of 
Christian  converts  in  Cochin  China.  The  Christian 
religion  is  made  to  be  treason  against  the  State  ;  it  is 
forbidden  by  penal  statutes.  French  priests,  nevertheless, 
give  themselves  up  to  the  Cochin  Mission,  in  order  to 
proNide  these  Christians  with  Sacraments.  They  are 
caught,  and  put  to  death  on  being  convicted  of  treason. 
Will  the  author  of  the  '  Roman  Question  '  deny  them  the 
name  of  Martyr  ?  The  Catholic  Church  does  not,  seeing 
that  they  ministered  the  Bread  of  Life  to  Christian  people, 
even  when  to  do  so  was  treason  against  the  '  powers  that 
'  be.'  Indeed  I  do  not  know  where  S.  Peter  and  S.  John 
can  be  ranked,  if  the  name  of  ^NlartjT  be  denied  to  the 
Catholics  in  Elizabeth's  reign,  who  held  on  to  their  faith 
in  spite  of  the  unchristian  statutes  that  were  hurled  against 
them,  and  to  the  brave  priests  who  ministered  to  them. 

As  for  the  absolute  disregard  of  historic  truth,  the 
great  author  of  the  '  Constitutional  Histor)- '  must  share 
the  blame.  For  Hallam  says  :  '  Treason,  by  the  law  of 
'  England  and  according  to  the  common  use  of  language, 
'  is  the  crime  of  rebellion  or  conspiracy  against  the  Govern- 
'  ment.  If  a  statute  is  made  by  which  the  celebration  of 
'  certain  religious  rites  is  subjected  to  the  same  penalties 
'  as  rebellion,  or  conspiracy,  would  any  man  free  from  pre- 
'  judice,  and  not  designing  to  impose  upon  the  uninformed, 
'  speak  of  persons  convicted  on  such  a  statute  as  guilty  of 
'treason,  without  expressing  in  what  sense  he  uses  the 
'words?  ...  A  man  is  punished  for  religion  when  he 
'  incurs  a  penalty  for  its  profession  or  exercise,  to  which  he 


Elizahctli  and  her  Clergy 


137 


'  was  not  liable  on  any  other  account.  This  is  applicable  to 
'  the  great  majority  of  capital  convictions  on  this  score  under 
'  Elizabeth.  The  persons  convicted  could  not  be  traitors 
'  in  any  fair  sense  of  the  word,  because  they  were  not 
'chargeable  with  anything  properly  denominated  treason.'  ^j^""!"'''"' 
Look  at  some  of  the  cases.    Will  any  fair-minded  History 

ch.  ill. 

man  maintain  that  Lord  Arundel  was  guilty  of  treason  ? 
A  letter  was  produced  against  him,  but  it  was  a  forgery. 
He  was  then  accused  of  two  things  :  of  having  tried  to 
leave  the  kingdom  without  license,  and  of  having  corre- 
sponded with  Father  Allen.  He  pleaded  necessity  for  the  see  Burke's 
first,  because  the  laws  of  the  country  did  not  permit  him  '^f^Z^^^ 
to  worship  God  according  to  his  conscience  ;  and  as  for 
the  second,  his  correspondence  was  on  matters  of  religion 
only.    He  had  to  pay  thirty  thousand  pounds. 

Will  any  fair-minded  man  maintain  that  Edward  Cam- 
pion, the  Oxford  convert,  one  of  the  beatified,  had  any 
other  end  in  view  than  a  strictly  religious  one?  We  know 
how  he  and  his  associates  protested  their  innocence,  and 
prayed  for  the  queen  with  their  last  breath.  When  Eliza- 
beth offered  him  an  annual  stipend,  and  lucrative  church 
livings,  if  he  would  renounce  the  Catholic  religion,  he 
replied  :  '  No,  Madam,  not  for  all  the  honours  that  royalty 
'  can  offer  me.  I  am  a  soldier  of  the  Cross,  and  glory  in 
'going  to  the  scaffold  for  the  principles  of  my  Divine 
'  Master.' 

During  those  fourteen  years  after  the  Spanish  Armada, 
the  persecution  was  renewed.  Sixty-one  clergymen, 
forty-seven  laymen,  and  two  ladies,  suffered  capital  punish- 
ment for  the  '  spiritual  treason '  which  had  been  lately 
created.  Liberty  was  generally  offered  to  the  accused, 
provided  they  abandoned  their  religion,  and  took  the  oath  ^^'I'^-j^ 
'  declaring  the  queen  the  vicegerent  of  Christ.'  '  During  37. 
'  all  the  latter  years  of  Elizabeth's  reign,'  says  Hallam,  '  the 
'rack  seldom  stood  idle.' 


138 


Eliaabeth  and  her  Clergy 


But  it  was  in  the  early  part  of  her  reign  that  Ehzabeth 
mostly  permitted  and  even  encouraged  the  violence  and 
cruelty  with  which  the  new  religion  was  forced  on  the 
land.  It  is  to  her  everlasting  discredit  that  she  allowed 
the  regular  use  of  torture  to  be  revived.  Her  sister  Mary 
had  set  it  aside,  but  Elizabeth  renewed  it.  The  rack — 
that  form  of  examination  which  is  a  disgrace  to  humanity, 
against  which  the  Holy  See  invariably  protested  in  Spain — 
came  into  frequent  use.  The  accounts  of  its  application 
are  so  horrible  that  I  spare  my  readers,  who  may  not  have 
examined  this  Satanic  instrument.  The  tortures  inflicted 
on  j\Iargaret  Clitheroe  and  Nicolas  Roscaroe  (a  boy  of 
sixteen),  are  almost  beyond  belief — would  that  they  were 
quite  !  And  (alas,  for  the  degradation  of  humanity  !)  the 
queen  even  ordered  the  bishops  to  use  torture  to  the 
Papists,  in  order  to  find  out  where  or  when  they  attended 
ISIass.  What  are  we  to  think  of  the  heroism  of  the  priests 
who,  nevertheless,  said  ]\Iass,  and  distributed  the  Bread 
of  Life  ? 

In  all  this,  John  AVhitgift,  sometime  Bishop  of  Wor- 
cester, and  subsequently  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  was 
Elizabeth's  foremost  adviser.  This  true  Protestant  even 
once  requested  Lord  Burleigh  to  rack  a  certain  priest 
'  till  he  gave  the  names  of  those  who  went  to  confession 
"'to  him.'  Burleigh  would  not  comply  with  that.  On 
another  occasion  this  prelate  publicly  declared  that  he 
would  rather  '  live  in  a  dungeon  all  the  days  of  his  life, 
'  or  even  die  in  a  prison,  than  permit  any  person  to  practise 
'  a  re/igioft  contrary  to  that  upheld  by  the  queen  and  hitn- 
^  se/f;'  and  this  sentiment  was  enforced,  not  only  against 
Catholics,  but  against  Puritans. 

The  penalty  for  saying  Mass  was  a  fine  of  200  marks 
and  imprisonment  :  and  priests  were  even  hung  on  the 
evidence  of  one  witness,  who  swore  that  he  saw  them 
saying  ]\Iass,  although  he  admitted  that  he  could  not 


ElisabetJi  and  her  Clergy 


139 


clearly  distinguish  between  Mass  and  any  other  Catholic 
ceremony. 

Of  this  I  am  convinced,  that  once  the  English  people 
come  to  know  the  guilelessness  of  Mary's  character  on 
the  one  hand,  the  comparative  regularity  of  the  trials 
under  her  when  she  was  well  enough  to  attend  to  business, 
the  undeserving  characters  of  those  who  suffered,  and 
then,  on  the  other  side,  the  guile  and  cruelty  and  per- 
sonal interest  in  the  revival  of  the  rack  (which  had  been 
then  laid  aside),  together  with  the  shockingly  unchristian 
end  of  Elizabeth,  and  above  all  the  comparatively  guile- 
less character  of  so  many  who  suffered  in  her  reign — 
once,  I  say,  let  the  English  people  know  the  truth  about 
these  things,  they  will  change  the  epithet,  which  ignorance 
and  prejudice  have  applied  to  Mary,  and  transfer  it  to 
Elizabeth. 

Such,  then,  was  the  result  of  the  change  of  doctrine 
initiated  by  Henry  VIII.  and  revived  by  Elizabeth.  Let 
us  look  the  truth  in  the  face,  and  we  shall  feel  that  Lord 
Macaulay  was  not  far  from  wrong  when  he  spoke  of  the 
Reformation  as  begun  by  a  murderer  of  his  wife,  con- 
tinued by  a  murderer  of  his  brother,  and  completed  by 
a  murderer  of  her  guest — Henry,  Somerset,  and  Elizabeth. 
Compare  the  restoration  of  the  Catholic  Faith  in  the 
Chablais  by  S.  Francis  of  Sales,  with  Bible  and  Breviary 
in  hand,  and  his  sweet  ways  and  mortified  life,  with  the 
destruction  of  the  same  in  England.  Compare  it  with 
these  Satanic  devices  of  rack  and  '  Skevington's  irons  ' 
and  iron  gloves,  whilst  the  persecuting  Archbishop  lived 
like  a  prince,  and  the  bishops  married  ;  and  reflect  that 
these  were  contemporary  events  ;  or  compare  the  reforms 
of  S.  Carlo  Borromeo,  his  nights  upon  nights  of  prayer, 
his  extraordinary  mortification,  his  devotion  to  his  people, 
his  love  and  devotion  to  the  Saints,  his  heroic  endurance 
of  persecution,  and  reflect  that  this,  too,  was  a  contem- 


140  Elisabeth  and  her  Clergy 

porar)-  life  !  I  think  of  him  and  then  turn  to  contem- 
plate the  author  of  the  English  Catechism  in  its  present 
form — Dean  Xowell— preaching  at  S.  Paul's  Cathedral  on 
'  The  propriety  of  killing  the  caged  wolves  with  the  least 
'  possible  delay,'  i.e.  the  Cathohc  bishops  then  in  prison, 
and  ask  where  was  the  '  gentle  do\-e '  ?  AMiich  was  the 
work  of  God  ? 

For  some  centuries  Protestants  have  had  history-  in 
their  own  hands,  and  State  records  and  other  public 
documents  have  been  practically  closed.  Daylight  has 
now  dawned,  and  we  are  beginning  to  see  how  English 
historj-  has  been  a  long  conspiracy  against  facts.  A^'e 
are  beginning— but  it  is  difficult  to  induce  people  to  look 
the  shame  of  the  so-called  Reformation  in  the  face.  Dr. 
Littledale  once  wTOte  a  ver)- able  lecture  on  'Innovations,' 
in  which  he  says  'Documents  hidden  from  the  public 
'  eye  for  centuries  in  the  archives  of  London,  A'enice,  and 
'  Simanais,  are  now  rapidly  being  printed,  and  ever)-  fresh 
'  find  establishes  more  clearly  the  utter  scoundrelism  of 
'  the  Reformers.'  This  lecture  cannot  now  be  had  ;  w  hilst 
'  Plain  Reasons,  &:c.,'  a  book  containing  almost  as  many 
misstatements  as  pages,  is  distributed  in  great  numbers 
by  the  Society  for  the  Promotion  of  Christian  Knowledge, 
under  the  patronage  of  the  Archbishops  and  Bishops 
of  the  Church  of  England,  who  in  the  person  of  their 
predecessors  were  up  in  arms  against  the  lecture.  It  is 
to  their  great  disgrace  that  they  have  thrown  their  aegis 
over  such  an  extraordinar)"  farrago  of  misstatements, 
and  on  one  point,  as  Father  Jones  has  pointed  out,  of 
dishonest  criticism.^ 

Such  is  the  conspiracy  carried  on  against  historical 
facts. 

But  for  this,  it  would  be  impossible  for  High  Anglicans 
to  maintain  that,  even  on  their  own  theorj-  of  Church 
'  Dishonest  Criticism,  by  James  Jones,  S.J. — Hodges. 


Elizabeth  and  her  Clergy 


141 


government,  any  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  passed  into 
the  hands  of  PLlizabeth's  clergy.  They  proclaim,  and 
never  tire  of  proclaiming,  that  the  system  under  which 
they  live  is  in  conformity  with  that  of  the  Primitive 
Church.  They  have  erected  '  Primitivity,'  as  they  call  it, 
into  a  very  note  of  the  Church.  Their  theory  involves 
the  assertion,  ist,  that  the  three  patriarchates  of  Rome, 
Alexandria,  and  Antioch  did  not  owe  their  origin,  as  S. 
Gregory  says  they  did,  to  their  relationship  to  S.  Peter, 
but  that  they  were  due  to  Conciliar  provisions  ;  and, 
2ndly,  that  the  Council  of  Nicsea  did  not  recognise  the 
patriarchal  system  as  an  established  feature  of  Church 
government. 

Metropolitical  authority  is  the  highest  known  to  the 
Church  of  England,  unless  we  include  the  Royal  supre- 
macy. The  patriarch  has  faded  into  the  distance  ;  and 
the  metropolitan  is  theoretically  independent,  except  it  be 
of  the  sovereign.  And  yet  if  anything  is  clear  in  history, 
surely  it  is  this — that  metropolitans  were  subject  to  patri- 
archs. Now  England  was  never  erected  into  a  patriarchate. 
It  was  part  of  the  Western  patriarchate  of  the  Bishop  of 
Rome.  The  whole  system  of  the  Church  of  England 
would  have  to  be  altered,  if  that  were  so.  The  Bishop  of 
Lincoln  would  have  to  consider  himself  to  be  in  presence 
of  his  Patriarch,  not  of  his  Metropolitan.  This,  however, 
no  one  supposes,  and  yet  the  Council  of  Nicasa  and,  °." 

'  Council 

Still  more  obviously,  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  make  the  Nicaia. 
obedience  of  a  metropolitan  to  a  patriarch  part  and 
parcel  of  the  '  form  '  of  unity  in  the  Church.  This  '  form  ' 
of  unity  was  repudiated  by  Elizabeth.  She  put  things 
back  to  the  state  in  which  they  were  in  the  time  of  her 
father  and  brother.  So  is  it  expressly  stated.  And  so 
she  ordered  a  fresh  metropolitan  to  be  consecrated. 

But  first,  on  what  ground  was  Canterbury  retained  as 
a  metropolitical  see  at  all  ?  It  had  been  originally  created 


142 


Elizabeth  and  her  Clergy 


such  by  Papal  authority.  So  far  as  that  authority  was 
concerned,  the  See  of  Canterbury  ceased  to  be  known  to 
the  Church.  It  was  with  Canterbury  just  as  it  was  with 
all  post-Reformation  sees  according  to  Bossuet.  When 
asked  whether  he  should  address  a  certain  Anglican 
bishop  as  bishop  of  such  and  such  a  see,  he  replied  that 
as  a  Catholic  he  knew  no  such  see.  So  Canterburj'  was 
no  longer  a  see  known  to  the  Church.  It  was  not  re- 
cognised as  such  by  its  patriarch,  to  say  nothing  of  Papal 
recognition. 

But  Henry  recreated  it — a  measure  which  was  ex- 
pressly forbidden  to  the  Emperor  at  the  Council  of  Chal- 
cedon  (4th  Session,  October  17,  451,  and  Canon  XII.),  as 
contrary  to  the  law  of  the  Church.  Here  are  the  terms 
in  which  Canterbury  was  established  a  metropolitical  see. 

Henry  begins  :  '  We,  inspired  by  the  divine  clemency 
'and  having  nothing  more  at  heart  than  that  the  true 
'  religion  and  the  true  worship  of  God  should  be  there 
'restored  .  .  .  have  determined  that  on  the  site  of  the 
'  said  monastery,  to  the  glory  and  honour  of  the  Holy 
'  and  Undivided  Trinitj',  a  Cathedral  and  Metropolitical 
'  Church,  consisting  of  one  priest-dean,  and  twelve  pre- 
'bendaries,  also  priests,  to  ser%-e  Almighty  God  entirely 
'  and  for  ever,  shall  be  created,  chosen,  founded,  and 
'  established ;  and  by  the  tenour  of  these  presents  we 
'  really  and  fully  create,  erect,  found,  establish  the  said 
'  Cathedral  and  Metropolitical  Church  .  .  .  and  by  these 
'  presents  we  adorn  the  same  Cathedral  and  Metropolitical 
'  Church  of  Christ  with  the  honours  and  insignia  of  an 
'  Archiepiscopal  See,  and  a  Cathedral  and  -Metropoli- 
'tical  Church.'  Elizabeth  put  things  back  to  the  state 
in  which  they  were  in  her  father  and  brother's  time, 
and  the  statute  by  which  her  supremacy  was  enforced 
conferred  upon  her  all  '  such  jurisdictions,  privileges,  and 
'  superiorities  and  pre-eminences,  spiritual  and  ecclesias- 


Elizabetli  and  her  Clergy 


143 


'  tical,  as  by  any  spiritual  or  ecclesiastical  foiver  or  ^f.  sydnc> 
'■authority  hath  heretofore  been,  or  may  lawfully  be,  ex  ?Ai'ieged 
'  ercised  or  used  for  the  visitation,  &c.,'  and  we  know  'a"'',!"'!?' 
from  history  that  this  fxcluded  the  ministration  of  sacra-        p-  55 
nients,  or  the  power  of  order,  and  /«cluded  all  that  be- 
longed to  the  Patriarch  of  the  West,  and  Primate  of  the 
Church,  under  the  term  jurisdiction.    This  is  the  power 
by  which  the  present  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  is  trying 
Dr.  King  for  his  conduct  of  Divine  service. 

Next,  even  if  the  See  of  Canterbury  had  remained  on 
its  old  footing,  instead  of  being  a  new  creation — even,  if 
(to  suppose  what  seems  to  us  an  absurdity)  it  possessed 
metropolitical  rights  inalienably,  so  that  the  power  that 
conferred  them  (viz.  the  Papal)  could  not  take  them  away, 
still  we  would  ask  a  further  question. 

By  what  bishops  holding  sees  in  the  province  of 
Canterbury  was  Archbishop  Parker  elected  ?  There  were 
none  who  would  consent  to  be  at  liberty  on  the  terms 
proposed.  And  a  suffragan  only  acts  by  permission 
of  the  diocesan  bishop,  and  so  far  as  his  permission 
extends.  If  he  acts  in  defiance  of  the  diocesan,  his  acts 
are  null  and  void.  Suffragans,  then,  are  out  of  the 
question.  The  canons  of  the  Council  of  Nictea  do  not 
cover  the  case  of  a  suffragan  acting  contrary  to  his 
diocesan's  permission.  He  would  be  in  a  state  of  eccle- 
siastical rebellion. 

Where,  then,  were  the  diocesan  bishops  of  the  pro- 
vince of  Canterbury  (who  alone  could  impart  jurisdic- 
tion, even  on  the  Anglican  theory)  when  Archbishop 
Parker  was  consecrated  by  Barlow  ?  They  had  refused 
to  act — in  other  words,  they  protested  against  the  act. 
The  act  of  consecrating  Archbishop  Parker  required  as 
its  preliminary  that  those  who  took  part  in  it  should  sign 
the  oath  of  supremacy.  They  would  not  sign.  An  act, 
therefore,  requiring  such  a  signature  was  in  their  judgment 


144 


Elizabeth  and  her  Clergy 


an  act  of  rebellion  against  the  Church  of  God,  and  they 
preferred  to  go  to  prison  or  death  rather  than  take  such 
an  oath.  They  knew  what  their  ancestors  had  done  in  a 
moment  of  sinful  compliance  under  pressure  from  Henry 
VIII.,  and  they  valued  their  souls  too  much  to  repeat 
the  sin. 

The  consequence  was  that  there  were  no  bishops  in 
the  province,  in  the  sense  that  the  Council  of  Nicsea 
used  the  term,  to  assist  in  Archbishop  Parker's  consecra- 
tion. Mr.  Gore's  defence  of  Anglican  jurisdiction  con- 
sists of  two  parts,  one  of  which  he  calls  the  '  technical 
'  defence.'  The  other,  by  whatever  name  it  should  be 
called,  seems  to  be  summed  up  in  his  assertion  that 
'jurisdiction  itself  is  regarded  (from  the  only  point  of 
'  view  which  can  be  called  Catholic)  as  inherent  in  the  see. 
'  It  is  entered  upon  when  any  bishop  is  enthroned  in  his 
'see  in  a  canonical  manner'  (p.  155). 

This  is  precisely  what  Archbishop  Parker  never  was. 
He  was  never  '  enthroned  in  a  canonical  manner.'  Mr. 
Gore  says  further  on,  that  '  when  Parker  was  consecrated 
'  it  was  by  bishops  as  canonically  "  provincial  "  as  was 
'  possible  under  the  circumstances.'  The  fact  is  that  it 
was  not  possible  under  the  circumstances  for  it  to  be 
done  by  any  '  canonically  provincial '  bishops.  For  the 
circumstances  were  such  as  to  preclude  a  Catholic  bishop 
from  acting.  Elizabeth  had  made  it  morally  impos- 
sible. 

'  Scory  and  Hodgkins,'  Mr.  Gore  says,  '  were  bishops 
'  within  the  province.'  True,  but  they  were  not  diocesan 
bishops.  They  were  not  bishops  '  of  the  province  '  in  the 
sense  that  the  canons  of  the  Church  use  the  term.  They 
had  no  jurisdiction. 

But  there  was  Coverdale.  Of  him  Mr.  Gore  says  : 
'  Coverdale,  formicrly  Bishop  of  Exeter,  had  been  quite 
'  uncanonically  deposed  on  Mary's  accession'  (p.  159). 


Elizabeth  and  her  Clergy 


145 


The  conclusion  suggested,  therefore,  is  that  he  was  a 
bishop  of  the  province. 

Let  us  see  what  is  the  truth.  ^ 

Voysey  was  appointed  Bishop  of  Exeter  by  Henry 
VIII.,  and  he  remained  in  his  see  until  the  king's  death. 
He  was  then  ninety  years  of  age.  On  Edward's  accession 
he  refused  to  help  in  spreading  the  tenets  of  the  so-called 
Reformation.  Consequently  Coverdale  was  appointed, 
against  the  diocesan's  wish,  under  letters  patent,  to  aid 
in  spreading  in  the  diocese  principles  that  the  diocesan 
considered  uncatholic.  Voysey  resigned,  with  the  express 
statement  that  it  was  '  pro  metu  corporis,'  which,  of  course, 
rendered  Coverdale's  occupation  of  his  place  irregular. 
On  Mary's  accession  Coverdale  deserted  Exeter  and  fled 
beyond  the  seas.    Voysey,  being  no  longer  '  in  metu 

*  corporis,'  returned  to  his  see.  About  two  years  later  he 
died,  and  Turberville  was  canonically  appointed  as  bishop. 
On  Elizabeth's  accession  he  was  deprived,  for  refusing 
to  take  the  oath  of  succession.  How  could  the  see  be 
said  to  be  canonically  vacant,  or  what  are  we  to  think  of 
Mr.  Gore's  summary,  viz.,  '  Coverdale,  formerly  Bishop 

*  of  Exeter,  had  been  uncanonically  deposed  on  Mary's 
'  accession '  ?    Is  there  a  word  of  truth  in  the  sentence  ? 

Mr.  Gore  has  forgotten  a  fact  which  Dr.  Littledale 
brought  out  in  his  lecture  on  Innovations,  and  which  com- 
pletely disposes  of  some  of  his  contentions.  '  Cranmer,' 
says  Dr.  Littledale,  '  took  out  a  new  patent  from  the 
'  Protector,  to  hold  office  at  the  sovereign's  pleasure  (an 
'  unheard-of  innovation  on  all  spiritual  claims),  urging 
'  his  suffragans  to  do  the  same.  Thus  he  had  no  legal 
'ground  of  complaint  when  Queen  Mary  deprived  him.' 

'  The  most  popular  manual  in  use  amongst  the  English  clergy 
of  Mr.  Gore's  school  of  thought  is  the  PriesVs  Prayer-book,  where 
Coverdale's  case  is  as  unhistorically  explained  as  it  is  here  by  Mr. 
Gore. 

L 


146 


Elizabeth  and  Jier  Clergy 


So  with  Coverdale  ;  he  had  no  legal  or  canonical  posi 
tion,  when  Queen  Marj-,  acting  under  commission  from 
the  Pope,  deprived  him.  If  the  Bishop  of  Rome  could 
depose  the  Bishop  of  Aries  in  S.  C}'prian"s  time,  as  the 
Saint  considered  he  ought,  he  could  surely  depose  this 
intruded  Bishop  of  Exeter,  and  clearly  the  legal  ques- 
tion, pace  Mr.  Gladstone  and  Mr.  Gore,  is  settled  by  the 
position  assumed  by  Cranmer  of  holding  his  see  at  the 
good  pleasure  of  the  sovereign. 

Coverdale  has  received  from  Protestant  historians 
the  title  of  'venerable.'  But  he  was  found  equal  to  the 
sacrilegious  act  of  helping  to  ensconce  Parker  in  the 
temporalities  of  Canterbury  when  the  whole  province  was 
in  open  protest  against  the  act.  It  is  a  mysten,-  ho%v 
a  man  of  grave  character  could  assist  a  person  of  Barlow's 
metier  in  such  a  tremendous  act  But  he  had  already 
innovated  on  the  immemorial  custom  of  the  episcopate 
to  remain  without  the  pleasures  and  distractions  of 
married  life.  Barlow  describes  Coverdale's  wife  as 
*  young,  pretty,  and  frisky.'  And  a  man  who  could  enter 
the  diocese  of  a  good  old  man  like  Voysey  and  subvert 
his  teaching,  supported  by  letters  patent,  and  end  with 
dri\^g  the  aged  bishop  out  of  his  see — a  man  who  could 
then  accept  the  position  of  returning  to  it  after  another 
bishop  had  been  canonicaUy  appointed  and  consecrated  to 
it,  and  still  held  to  it — such  a  man  whether  venerable  or 
not  in  other  ways,  could  have  had  no  respect  for  canonical 
forms.  He  would  have,  of  course,  no  scruple  about 
placing  a  Protestant  teacher  on  the  throne  of  Canterbury 
in  obedience  to  Elizabeth's  commands,  irrespective  of 
the  consent  of  the  rightful  owners  of  the  sees  of  that 
unhappy  pro^-ince. 

AMiatever,  then,  Mr.  Gore  may  mean  by  '  canonicaUy 
'pro^•incial,'  it  is  certain  that  no  bishops  of  the  province 
of  Canterbury,  in  the  sense  in  which  the  Church  has 


Elizabeth  and  her  Clergy  147 


always  understood  that  term,  consented  to  Archbishop 
Parker's  enthronisation  at  Canterbury.  And  by  with- 
holding their  consent  they  deprived  him  of  all  jurisdiction, 
save  what  Elizabeth,  as  '  governor '  of  the  Church,  could 
bestow,  and  that  was,  from  a  spiritual  point  of  view,  none. 

By  way  of  plain  evidence,  there  is  a  remark  of  Lord 
Burleigh's,  the  Secretary  of  State,  which  proves  that  there 
were  no  provincials  to  give  their  helping  hand  to  Arch- 
bishop Parker's  consecration — that  is  to  say,  such  as 
there  were  had  been  driven  from  their  sees.  In  a  paper 
in  the  State  Paper  Office,  the  steps  to  be  taken  for  the 
confirmation  of  Archbishop  Parker  are  given  in  detail. 
One  of  these  is  that  the  order  of  King  Edward's  book 
is  to  be  observed.  Opposite  them  Lord  Burleigh  wrote  : 
'This  book  is  not  established  by  Parliament.'  Another 
step  to  be  taken  was  that  letters  patent  were  to  '  be 
'  directed  to  any  other  archbishop  within  the  king's 
'  dominions.  If  all  be  vacant,  to  four  bishops,  to  be  ap- 
'  pointed  by  the  queen's  letters  patent.' 

Opposite  this  Lord  Burleigh  wrote  :  'There  is  no 
'archbishop  nor  four  bishops  now  to  be  had.'  They  had 
all  refused  the  necessary  oath.  The  one  supposed  ex- 
ception is  Kitchen,  of  Llandaff.  He  did  not  act,  and  it 
is  not  proved  that  he  even  signed.  The  last  we  hear  of 
him  is  that  he  hesitated.  A  little  before  his  death  he 
says :  'The  Queenes  Ma''^  of  her  bountiful  grace  tenderinge 
'  the  quyet  of  my  conscience  hath  differred  the  renderinge 
'of  thothe  [the  oath]  of  her  supremacie  to  my  further 
'  consideration  within  myself  in  the  spending  of  Goddes 
'  learnynge,  &c.'  He  says  that,  although  he  cannot  make 
up  his  mind  to  sign  it  himself,  he  will  obediently  ad- 
minister it  to  others,  which  shows  the  metal  of  which  he 
was  made.  The  rest  preferred  prison  or  exile.  They 
did  not  vacate  their  sees. 

One  of  those  who  went  into  exile  sat  in  the  Council 

L  2 


148 


ElizabetlL  and  her  Clergy 


of  Trent.  There  is  a  curious  letter  of  Elizabeth's  extant 
concerning  him.  It  was  Goldwell,  Bishop  of  S.  Asaph. 
He  never  resigned  his  see.  He  tells  Lord  Burghley  so 
in  a  letter.  To  the  end  of  his  days  he  signed  himself 
'Thomas  Asaphen.'  He  told  the  authorities  at  Rome 
that  he  was  driven  out  into  exile,  being  unable  to  say 
Mass  or  to  preach,  through  Elizabeth's  high-handed  action. 
He  spoke  in  the  Council  of  Trent  in  favour  of  the  queen 
being  excommunicated.  The  queen  had  done  her 
utmost  to  induce  him  to  sign  the  oath  of  supremacy. 
But  he  bore  the  character  of  a  high-minded,  devoted 
man,  of  austere  life  and  great  prayerfulness.  The  queen 
did  her  best  to  bribe  him  into  signing,  but  he  was  im- 
pervious to  her  persuasive  oiifers.  He  escaped  being  put 
into  custody,  and  appeared  at  the  Council  of  Trent.  No 
one,  then,  placed  over  his  diocese  could  by  any  stretch 
of  language  be  called  the  canonical  bishop  of  S.  Asaph, 
except  himself,  so  long  as  he  lived.  He  died  in  1585, 
in  one  of  the  homes  of  the  Theatine  order,  to  which  he 
belonged,  in  his  eighty-fifth  year.  Baronius  speaks  of 
him  as  '  a  man  conspicuous  for  hohness  of  life,  the 
'  confession  of  the  faith,  and  learning,  who  lately  died  at 
'  Rome,  to  the  sorrow  of  all  good  persons.' 

The  queen,  when  she  heard  of  his  being  at  the 
Council  of  Trent,  seems  to  have  been  greatly  angered. 
She  wrote  to  her  envoy  in  Germany  (March  21,  1562) 
saying  :  '  As  to  the  first  matter  we  think  it  may  be  that 
'  one  Goldwell,  a  very  simple  and  fond  man,  having  in 
'  our  late  sister's  time  been  named  to  a  small  bishopric  in 
'  Wales,  called  S.  Asaph,  though  never  thereto  admitted, 
'  flying  out  of  the  realm  upon  our  sister's  death,  is  gone 
'  to  Rome  as  a  renegade,  and  there  using  the  name  of  a 
'  bishop  without  order  or  title,  is  perhaps  gone  in  the  train 
'  of  some  cardinal  to  Trent,  and  so  it  is  likely  the  speech 
'  hath  arisen  of  a  bishop  of  England  being  there.' 


Elizabeth  atid  her  Clergy 


149 


The  queen  here,  of  course,  tells  a  falsehood.  Would 
that  it  stood  alone  in  the  record  of  her  life  ! 

Such,  then,  was  the  dilemma  in  which  Elizabeth  found 
herself.  A  metropolitan  was  needed,  and  a  metropolitan 
was  made.  But  besides  what  I  have  already  pointed  out, 
there  was  another  symptom  of  the  confusion  into  which 
everything  had  been  thrown.  The  confirming  bishops 
were  unconfirmed  themselves  for  eleven  days  after  Parker's 
confirmation.  They  consecrated  Parker  Dec  17,  and 
Barlow  and  Scory  were  afterwards  confirmed  in  their 
respective  bishoprics  by  Parker,  whom  they  had  confirmed 
in  his  before.  But  they  had  no  more  right  to  consecrate 
an  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  than  they  had  to  conse- 
crate one  for  Paris  or  Moscow.  They  had  no  jurisdiction 
themselves  on  any  conceivable  theory  that  can  appeal  to 
the  canons  of  the  Church,  and  that  defect  must  still  in- 
here in  Parker's  successors  ;  time  cannot  cure  it.  Original 
sin  is  not  done  away  with  by  our  distance  from  Adam, 
but  by  baptism.  '  Quod  ab  initio  nullum  est  tractu 
'  temporis  non  convalescit.' 

But  the  queen  had  no  hesitation  as  to  her  course  of 
action.  She  stepped  forward  in  her  royal  majesty,  and 
cured  the  defect.  An  enabling  Act  was  passed,  and  the 
machinery  was  set  in  motion.  She  was  her  father's  child 
— a  Tudor  from  head  to  foot.  Not  long  afterwards  she 
stepped  with  the  same  royal  ease  into  the  patriarch's 
throne  with  even  more  sublime  consciousness  of  her  spi- 
ritual jurisdiction.  She  had  been  proclaimed  'governor' 
of  the  Church  of  England.  She  would  not  have  been 
Elizabeth  if  she  had  not  used  the  authority  which 
Parliament  had  given  her.  Why  does  not  Grindal,  the 
successor  of  Parker  in  the  see  of  Canterbury,  exert  him- 
self against  the  Puritans  with  greater  zeal?  Elizabeth 
suspended  him.  In  vain  did  twelve  of  his  suffragans  plead 
for  him  ;  in  vain  did  Convocation  urge  his  cause.  They 


Elisabeth  and  her  Clergy 


had  to  consent  to  fulfil  his  functions.  Just  as  afterwards 
Charles  I.,  under  Laud's  guidance,  suspended  Archbishop 
Abbot,  and  nominated,  authorized,  and  appointed  five  of 
his  suffragans  to  act  for  him  :  '  to  do,  execute,  and  per- 
form all  and  every  those  acts,  matters,  and  things,  anyway 
touching  or  concerning  the  power,  jurisdiction,  or  autho- 
rity of  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  in  causes  or  matters 
ecclesiastical.'  If  this  was  not  fulfilling  the  office  of  a 
patriarch,  in  what  did  that  office  consist  ?  It  is  idle  to 
refer,  as  Mr.  Gore  does,  to  Byzantine  emperors  or 
Frankish  kings,  for  any  parallel  to  this.  This  was  a 
settlement,  a  supposed  reformation,  a  new  departure, 
which  governed  the  course  of  events  for  three  centuries 
to  come.  Between  this  and  the  regime  in  the  Eastern 
Church  under  the  Byzantine  emperors,  there  was  this 
vital  difference.  The  patriarchate  of  Constantinople 
did  not  stand  alone,  as  Archbishop  Parker  did,  out  of 
communion  with  the  rest  of  the  Catholic  world.  The 
tendency  of  the  Eastern  patriarchates  to  Erastianism 
was  continually  being  checked  and  corrected  by  the 
action  of  the  See  of  S.  Peter.  When  no  longer  in  com- 
munion with  Rome,  the  patriarchate  of  Constantinople 
became  a  blighted,  withered  thing,  smothered  by  its 
Erastianism.  From  having  preserved  a  true  priesthood, 
it  never  lost  the  sacerdotal  idea,  or  its  respect  for  the 
monastic  life,  as  England,  nor  did  it  develop  such  a  crop 
of  heresies.  But  it  lost  its  spring  and  power,  and  became 
as  still  as  a  frozen  tarn.  It  was  an  ecclesiastical  petri- 
faction. In  England  things  were  worse.  The  Sacrifice 
became  a  '  memory,'  and  the  priesthood  a  '  ministry.' 
Decorum  took  the  place  of  zeal,  the  wife  superseded  the 
'discipline,'  and  the  Saint  disappeared.  The  good 
clergyman  replaced  the  holy  priest,  and  obedience  to  the 
law,  devotion  to  the  Pope.  The  daily  Mass  was  suc- 
ceeded by  occasional  administration  of  the  Lord's  Supper ; 


ElizabetJi  and  her  Clergy 


confession  and  absolution,  by  justification  by  faith,  and 
listening  to  a  sermon.  Bishops  paid  their  annates  to  the 
Sovereign  instead  of  the  Pope,  and  Royal  Commissions 
superseded  Provincial  Synods.  Perhaps  no  more  com- 
plete proof  of  the  entire  acceptance,  by  the  new  Church 
of  England,  and  the  nation  at  large,  of  the  Erastian 
position  could  be  adduced  than  the  history  of  Arch- 
bishop Abbot.  He  had  killed  a  man,  by  accident,  when 
hunting  at  Bramzill  Park.  The  Lord-Keeper  Williams, 
then  Bishop  of  Lincoln,  announced  the  fact  to  the  Duke 
of  Buckingham,  in  the  following  manner  :  '  His  Grace, 
'  upon  this  accident,  is,  by  the  common  law  of  England, 
'  to  forfeit  all  his  estate  unto  his  Majesty  ;  and  by  the 
'  canon  law,  which  is  in  force  with  us  (he  is)  irregular 
^  ipso  facto,  and  so  suspended  from  all  ecclesiastical 
'  functions,  until  he  be  again  restored  by  his  superior  \ 

*  which,  I  take  it,  is  the  King's  Majesty,  in  this  rank  and 
'  order  of  ecclesiastical  jurisdictions.' 

'The  King,'  says  Bishop  Hacket,  'saw  that,  whether  See  Allies 
'  the  person  of  the  Archbishop  were  tainted  by  this  act,  or  Royal  Supre 
'  not,  yet  his  metropolitical  function  was  unsettled  in  many  (plckcrmgf 
'  men's  opinions  ;  he  heard  that  the  acts  of  spiritual  courts 
'  were  usurped,  and  came  to  no  end,  till  sentence  were 
'  pronounced  oneway  or  another  by  the  supreme  authority. 
'  Therefore  a  commission  was  directed  from  his  Majesty 
'  to  ten  persons,  to  meet  together  for  this  purpose  about 

*  the  beginning  of  October.'  The  result  of  their  delibera- 
tions was,  that  the  King  appointed  a  Commission  of 
bishops,  Andrewes  being  one  of  them,  and  by  their  means 
'  assoiled  the  Archbishop  from  all  irregularity,  scandal, 
'  or  infamation,  pronouncing  him  to  be  capable  to  use  all 
'metropolitical  authority.'  The  royal  decree  runs  :  '  Of 
'  our  special  grace,  and  of  our  supreme  royal  and  eccle- 
'  siastical  authority,'  and  it  frees  the  Archbishop  from  all 
'  defect,  censure,  penalty,  canonical  and  ecclesiastical,' 


152 


Elizabeth  and  her  Clergy 


and  it  restores  to  him  freedom  to  'minister,  enjoy,  exer- 
'cise'  the  entire  office  of  his  archiepiscopate.  CoUier 
(ix.  378)  remarks:  'This  is  a  wonderful  relief  from  the 
'  Crown  ! '  and  supposes  '  a  patriarchal  at  least,  if  not  a 
'papal  authority,  in  the  King.'  No  wonder  that  in  this 
century,  the  Bishop  of  Durham  could  say  from  his  place 
in  the  House  of  Lords  :  '  Now  it  is  manifest  .  .  .  this 
'  latter  power  (jurisdiction),  though  spiritual  in  its  purpose 
'  and  effect,  cannot  be  exercised  by  any  other  authority 
'than  that  of  the  State  .  .  .  spiritual  functions  belong 
'  exclusively  to  the  Church  ;  spiritual  jurisdiction  belongs 
'  to  the  State  as  allied  to  the  Church,  and  although  exer- 
'  cised  by  the  Church,  is  derived  from  the  State,'  which 
is  Erastianism  pure  and  simple. 

Such  was  the  system  which  Elizabeth  had  the  skill  to 
introduce.  It  was  her  courageous  determination  that 
prevented  the  Church  of  England  from  being  quite  what 
the  rest  of  the  Protestant  world  soon  became.  She  could 
say  to  a  bishop,  '  By  God,  I  will  unfrock  you  ! '  and  she 
used  her  determination  to  keep  the  religion  set  up  in  her 
realm  '  something  like '  the  Confession  of  Augsburg,  as  she 
told  the  Spanish  ambassador,  and  '  yet  different  from  it.* 
It  was  the  latter  half  that  was  the  difficulty.  Her  bishops 
had,  some  of  them,  been  abroad  in  Mary's  reign,  and 
since  they  found  themselves  most  in  accord  with  the 
Protestants  there,  as,  for  instance,  at  Frankfort,  they  com- 
municated with  them,  but  were  unable  to  do  so  without 
signing  the  Confession  of  Augsburg,  '  which,'  we  read, 
'  accordingly  they  did.'  And  so  her  bishops  were  to  be 
'something  like  '  the  Catholic  bishops  and  '  yet  different.* 
They  were,  above  all  things,  to  abolish  the  Mass,  and  yet 
they  were  to  admit  in  her  own  chapel  some  grandeur  in 
their  functions.    Elsewhere  the  altar  vestments  became 

Lee  on  '  Tha      ,     ,  , 

Church        '  bed-quilts,  or  on  occasion  '  a  stomacher  for  a  wench, 

under  Queen  ,    ,        ,  ,  i  mi 

Elizabeth,'    and  the  altar  stones  were  put  to  'common  uses.  Ihe 

voL  i.  p.  264. 


ElizabctJi  and  her  Clergy 


153 


people  of  England  disliked  the  change.  But  Elizabeth 
was  fully  equal  to  the  occasion.  She  could  boast  that 
she  '  tuned  the  pulpits  '  of  the  clergy  whom  she  suffered 
to  occupy  the  places  of  the  deprived  prelates.  Of  these 
latter  Bishop  Jewel  writes  February  7,  1562:  'The  'Zurich 
'  Marian  bishops  are  still  confined  in  the  Tower,  and  ^sfscHef 
'  going  on  in  their  old  way.  .  .  .  They  are  an  obstinate 
'and  untamed  set  of  men,  but  are  nevertheless  subdued 
'  by  terror  and  the  sword.'  He  had  already  written  to  the 
same  Peter  Martyr  in  August  1559:  '  Many  alterations  in 
'religion  are  effected  in  Parliament  in  spite  of  the  'oppo- 
'sition  and  gainsaying  and  disturbance  of  the  bishops.' 
It  was,  indeed,  a  battle  between  the  crozier  and  the 
Crown,  and  the  victory  was  with  the  Crown.  And  so  a 
few  years  later  (157 1)  one  of  her  creatures — Archbishop 
Grindal  of  York,  afterwards  Primate  of  all  England — 
ordered  all  altars  to  be  pulled  down  and  altar  stones  to 
be  defaced,  and  England  had  her  rich  language  defiled 
by  the  fearful  blasphemy  contained  in  the  common  phrase 
'  hocus  pocus.' ' 

And  what  was  her  last  treatment  of  her  clergy  ? 
'  Many,'  says  Miss  Strickland,  '  have  been  dazzled  with 
'  the  splendour  of  her  life ;  but  few,  even  of  her  most 
'ardent  admirers,  would  wish  their  last  end  to  be  like 
'hers.'  That  end  was  marked  by  a  silent  melancholy. 
'  She  never,'  says  Lady  Southwell,  '  lost  her  senses  for 
'  one  moment,  but  was  prevented  from  speaking  on  account 
'  of  a  sore  throat.'  AVhen  the  Archbishops  of  Canterbury 

'  A  parody  of  the  Latin  words  for  'This  is  My  Body,' containing 
the  idea  that  the  Consecration  in  the  Mass  is  a  trick  and  a  delusion. 
Archbishop  Tillotson  says  :  '  In  all  probability  those  common 
jangling  words,  of  Hocus  Pocus,  are  nothing  but  a  corruption  of 
Hoc  est  corpus,  by  way  of  ridiculous  imitation  of  the  priests  of  the 
Church  of  Rome  in  their  trick  of  Transubstantiation.'— Z'wfwritf 
against  Transubstantialion. 


154 


Elizabeth  and  her  Clergy 


and  York  visited  her  she  became  offended,  and  told 
■See  liurke's  them  '  to  be  off ;  she  was  no  atheist,  but  she  knew  full 
portrait's''/'  ^^'cll  that  they  were  but  hedge-priests.'  She  died,  a 
vol.  IV.        <  nielancholy,  disconsolate,  forlorn,  and  miserable  old 

'  woman.' 

That  she  ever  came  to  be  called  '  good  Queen  Bess ' 
is  due  simply  to  the  fact  that  Protestantism  has  long 
poisoned  the  wells  of  history,  and  Protestant  historians 
have  not  'troubled  themselves  with  facts.'  The  author 
of  the  '  Roman  Question  '  quotes  with  approval  the  state- 
ment of  Professor  Creighton  that  in  Henry  VIII.'s  time 
'very  few  Englishmen  at  the  time  wished  to  maintain  the 
'  connection  with  Rome  ; '  and  again  in  reference  to  the 
relation  with  Rome  re-established  under  Mary  :  '  After 
'  that  brief  experience  Englishmen  never  wished  to  hear  of 
'  it  again.'  Mr.  Brewer,  after  the  most  careful  study  of  the 
State  documents  of  the  period  that  perhaps  any  man  has 
yet  given  to  them,  tells  us  the  precise  contrary.  The 
people  did  not  wish  for  the  change,  and  did  not  like  it 
when  it  came.  Paget  writes  to  Somerset  that  '  eleven- 
'  twelfths  of  the  kingdom  were  opposed  to  the  new-fangled 
'teaching'  (Strype,  ii.  no).  So  much  for  Professor 
Creighton's  statement. 

And  in  Elizabeth's  reign  it  was  difficult  to  induce 
educated  men  to  enter  the  new  ministry.  Men  called 
the  new  episcopate  '  Parliament-bishops  '  ;  cobblers, 
tinkers,  tailors  had  to  be  pressed  into  the  service  ;  the 
greed  for  marriage  amongst  the  clergy  could  only  be 
satisfied  by  their  being  content  with  persons  of  doubtful 
character,  so  adverse  were  respectable  people  to  the  new 
idea  of  a  married  ministry.  You  read  in  the  records 
of  the  times  the  objections  people  had  to  attending  the 
novel  services,  and  those  objections  hinged  precisely  on 
the  doubtful  validity  of  the  new  order  of  clergy.  In  the 
York  House  Books,  the  records  of  the  corporation,  there 


Elizabeth  and  her  Clergy 


155 


is  a  list  of  numbers  of  persons  who  were  brought  before 
the  Lord  Mayor  in  1573,  for  instance,  for  not  attending 
church.  Their  answers  are  most  significant.  One  gives 
as  a  reason  for  not  attending,  '  It  is  not  the  Catholic 
<  Church  ; '  another,  '  There  is  no  priest  ; '  a  third,  '  There 
'  is  not  the  Sacrament  of  the  altar  ; '  a  fourth,  '  There  is 
'  neither  priest  nor  Sacrament.'  But  the  machinery  in 
existence,  worked  by  a  Tudor  will,  was  equal  to  en- 
forcing conformity  wherever  the  spirit  of  martyrdom  was 
lacking,  and  martyrs  in  all  ages  are  but  'few  and  far 
'  between.'  Conformity  was  achieved  for  a  brief  space, 
but  only  to  give  way  to  an  explosion  of  heresy  such  as 
the  world  has  seldom  seen.  Sects  soon  crept  into 
existence,  and  began  to  cover  the  land  silently  but  surely, 
until  the  endeavour  to  return  to  the  slightest  similitude 
of  Popery  brought  a  successor  of  Matthew  Parker  to  the 
block.  As  the  Protestant  Melanchthon  writes  of  his  own 
country,  '  All  the  waters  of  the  Elbe  would  not  yield  me 
tears  sufficient  to  weep  for  the  miseries  caused  by  the 
Reformation'  (lib.  iv.  ep.  100),  so  it  might  be  said  of 
England,  '  Not  all  the  waters  of  the  Thames  would  yield 
'  tears  enough  to  weep  for  the  neglect  of  the  poor,  the 
'  corruptness  of  judges,  the  oppressiveness  of  landlords, 
'frequency  of  murder,  prevalence  of  adultery  and  con- 
'  sequent  divorce,  which  the  Protestant  annalist  Strype 
'  sets  down  as  sins  resulting  from  the  Reformation.' 

At  length  an  utter  absence  of  all  spiritual  life  came 
over  the  land,  once  the  home  of  saints.  The  Church  never 
quite  died  out ;  no  Towneley  ever  apostatised  ;  there  were 
Howards  and  others  still  true  to  the  old  religion.  There  are 
villages  in  Lancashire  that  never  knew  the  withering  blight 
of  the  Reformation.  But  the  ostracism  never  ceased,  and 
we  read  now  and  again  how  in  the  last  century  men 
went  to  Mass  and  suffered  for  it.  In  1765  a  gendeman 
was  summoned  before  the  sitting  alderman  for  attending 


156 


ElisabetJi  and  her  Clergy 


Mass  contrary  to  law,  and  was  obliged  to  enter  into  a 
recognisance  for  400/.  for  his  appearance  at  the  ensuing 
sessions  of  the  place  ('Gentleman's  Magazine,'  1765). 

But  at  length  the  indifference  and  torpor  were  sufficient 
to  enable  the  exiled  priests  from  a  neighbouring  country 
in  revolution  to  settle  here,  and,  as  in  His  exile  from  the 
Holy  Land  the  Church's  infant  King  blessed  the  country 
of  His  sojourn,  so  was  it  here.  The  Christian  faith 
revived,  and  men  saw  their  way  back  into  the  Church  of 
their  fathers.  The  home  of  learning  by  the  banks  of  the 
Isis  became  the  birthplace  of  a  new  progeny,  born  unto 
God  in  the  Catholic  Church.  The  saints  one  by  one  re- 
turned in  their  various  Orders.  They  are  here  now  at  work 
and  by  toil,  and  prayers,  and  sacrifices,  and  the  Holy 
Mass,  are  pleading  with  the  Lord,  Who  was  driven  out : 
'  Come,  Lord  Jesus,  and  with  Thy  blessed  Mother  take 
'  possession  once  again  of  the  country  where  Thy  saints 
'  lived  and  died  in  the  communion  of  Thine  Apostle's  See, 
'  whom  Thou  didst  make  the  rock  of  the  Church  and  the 
'  key-bearer  of  the  kingdom  of  Heaven  under  Thyself, 
'  Who  art  the  Rock  of  Ages,  and  Who  hast  the  keys  of 
'  death  and  hell,  Who  openest  and  no  man  shutteth  ! ' 


The  Decline  of  Dogma 


157 


CHAPTER  IX. 

THE  DECLINE  OF  DOGMA. 

Some  years  ago,  it  was  usual  amongst  High  Churchmen 
to  admit  that  things  were  in  evil  case  in  the  Church  of 
England,  as  compared  with  things  elsewhere,  but  that  it 
was  our  duty  to  remain  where  God  had  placed  us.  Such 
an  attitude,  it  was  urged,  fostered  humility  ;  and  the  ad- 
mission only  amounted  to  our  being  in  outward  corre- 
spondence with  our  Lord  in  His  Passion.  It  was  thought 
right  to  admit  that  it  would  have  been  an  inestimable 
blessing  to  have  been  born  a  Roman  Catholic  ;  but  as 
we  were  not,  our  duty  lay  in  submission  to  the  Divine 
decree. 

Of  late  years  this  attitude  has  very  much  disappeared. 
It  is  now  taught  that  it  is  a  comparative  blessing  to  have 
been  born  in  the  Anglican  Branch,  as  it  is  called,  and  not 
in  the  Roman  Communion.  There  are,  it  is  urged,  as 
many  difficulties  in  the  latter  Communion  as  in  any  other 
religious  body :  consequently  '  we  are  better  off  where  we 
'are.'  A  good  instance  of  this  is  to  be  found  in  an  article 
of  the  'Church  Quarterly  Review'  for  January  of  this 
year.  The  article  deals  with  my  book  on  '  Authority,'  and 
devotes  a  considerable  portion  to  a  passing  assertion  of 
mine  that  the  Church  of  England  shows  a  want  of  firm- 
ness even  on  the  subject  of  hell. 

Now  before  touching  on  this  subject,  I  wish  to  say 
thus  much  :  viz.  that  if  any  words  of  mine  should  lead  to 


158 


TJie  Decline  of  Dogma 


more  decision  on  this  matter  in  the  Church  of  England 
no  one  will  rejoice  over  it  more  than  myself.  I  should 
lose  an  argument,  but  I  should  help  some  souls,  God 
knows  what  agonies  I  have  endured  through  the  inde- 
cision of  the  Church  of  England  on  this  awful  subject.  It 
was  my  rule  always  to  preach  on  it  at  stated  intervals, 
and  at  every  Mission,  in  Europe,  Asia,  Africa,  and 
America.  I  have  received  in  consequence  plenty  of  re- 
monstrances from  laymen  to  the  effect  that  I  ought  to 
know  better  than  to  rank  this  doctrine  amongst  the 
articles  of  faith.  But  the  real  difficulty  comes  from  the 
teaching  body  in  the  Church  of  England.  Besides  what 
I  have  mentioned  in  my  book,  is  it  not  notorious  that, 
for  instance,  one  of  the  churches  in  London  which  has 
fought  the  Ritualistic  battle,  is  now  occupied  by  a  vicar, 
who  both  preaches  Universalism,  and  writes  in  favour  of 
it  ?  The  last  Anglican  bishop  that  I  spoke  to  had  been 
greatly  shocked  at  the  prayer,  '  Sancta  Maria,  eripe  me 
de  tormentis  feternis.'  When  I  proceeded  to  explain 
that  this  related  to  the  glorious  intercession  of  our  Lady, 
I  found  that  his  difficulty  was  quite  as  much  with  the 
words  '  aeternis  tormentis,'  as  with  her  intercession.  I 
found  it  a  matter  of  notoriety  that  he  had  just  been 
wounding  the  susceptibilities  of  some  of  his  congregation, 
and  delighting  the  '  liberality '  of  others,  by  his  loose 
teaching  on  the  subject  of  hell.  Since  I  wrote  my  book, 
a  scene  has  been  enacted  which  speaks  volumes  as  to 
the  present  state  of  things  on  this  subject.  At  the  great 
annual  meeting  of  English  churchpeople,  the  Manchester 
Congress,  two  clergymen  were  asked  to  address,  or  to 
write  addresses  for,  one  of  the  meetings,  whose  compara- 
tive heterodoxy  on  the  subject  must  have  been  known. 
The  address  of  one  was  read  in  the  presence  of  at  least 
one  Enghsh  bishop  sitting  on  the  platform.  A  more 
horrible  pronuncia7iiietito  on  the  subject  of  eschatology 


TJic  Decline  of  Dogma 


159 


I  have  hardly  ever  read.  The  address  was  listened  to 
with  impatience,  but  the  bishop  by  his  presence  in  the 
chair  secured  a  '  fair  hearing  '  for  this  heretical  teacher. 
This  same  clergyman,  after  sowing  such  seeds  of  doubt 
as  he  could  by  having  his  paper  read  in  the  presence  of 
a  bishop,  retains  his  rectory  and  represents  the  Church 
of  England  to  his  Yorkshire  people.  Who  can  blame 
him  ?  he  is  within  his  rights.  He  probably  sincerely  be- 
lieves that  he  has  just  as  much  right  to  teach  what  he 
does,  as  the  Low  Churchman  who  used  to  teach  all  the 
horrors  of  Calvinistic  predestination. 

These  are  surely  pronounced  symptoms  of  a  disease  - 
of  a  disease  at  work  at  the  very  vitals  of  the  system  ;  for 
the  health  of  a  system  which  cannot  repudiate  this  false 
teaching  on  a  fundamental  truth  must  have  been  seriously 
undermined.  Then,  am  I  not  right  in  saying  that  the 
Church  of  England  is  not  as  keen  and  sensitive  as  she 
once  was,  on  the  subject  of  hell  ?  I  do  not  wish  to  make 
out  a  case.  God  forbid  !  If  anyone  can  show  me  the 
contrary,  I  will  gladly  hear  him,  and  rejoice  from  the 
bottom  of  my  heart.  My  own  conviction  is,  and  it  is  a 
matter  of  deepest  sorrow,  that  the  Church  of  England  is 
steadily  losing  her  hold  of  the  dogmatic  principle  alto- 
gether. The  calmness  with  which  heresy  is  endured  may 
bring  peace  ;  but  it  will  be  the  peace  of  torpor,  and  the 
prelude  of  death.  That  fierce  indignation  against  the 
evil  of  heresy  which  betokens  moral  fibre  ;  that  holy 
anger  which  denotes  that  the  finer  sensibilities  of  our 
nature  have  not  been  dulled ;  where  are  they  now  ? 
That  dreadful  boast  of  comprehensiveness,  the  dread  of 
bondage  to  dogma  and  discipline,  are  notes  of  a  decaying 
system,  which  cannot  gather  itself  up  to  speak  with  the 
unity  of  its  being,  and  express  itself  as  one  living  person. 

No  Catholic  can  see  the  Church  of  England  sink 
ever  so  little  into  dogmatic  indifference,  without  a  pang. 


i6o  Tlie  Decline  of  Dogma 

If  there  were  no  other  reason,  it  would  treble  the  work  of 
the  Catholic  Church.  The  Establishment  would  never 
give  to  the  Church  another  Newman,  or  Manning,  or 
Wilberforce,  or  Lockhart,  or  Ward,  or  Faber,  not  to 
mention  a  host  of  others  whose  lives  and  deaths  have 
edified  the  Church.  But  also,  who  that  has  friends 
within  her  bosom  can  bear  the  thought  of  their  living 
and  dying  without  that  keen  sense  of  the  value  of  truth 
which  belongs  to  any  sort  of  spiritual  perfection  ? 

But  I  confess  to  a  feeling  akin  to  despair  when  I 
read  such  an  article  as  that  which  appeared  in  the  last 
'  Church  Quarterly  Review,'  or  remarks  such  as  occur  in 
Mr.  Gore's  book  on  '  Roman  Catholic  Claims.'  Mr.  Gore 
seems  of  the  two  far  the  most  keenly  alive  to  the  evil : 
accordingly  he  busies  himself  with  defending  Archdeacon 
Farrar  from  the  charge  of  heresy.  The  archdeacon 
wrote  a  book  which  destroyed  all  belief  in  hell  in  numbers 
of  souls.  The  result  of  his  book  was  to  suggest  that 
Christendom  has  been  wrong  on  that  subject  for  ages, 
and  that  he  had  been  sent  to  put  it  right.  The  further 
conclusion  drawn  was,  that  if  Christendom  could  go 
wrong  on  such  a  point,  why  not  on  others  too  ?  Arch- 
deacon Farrar  professes  to  agree  with  Dr.  Pusey.  Yet 
who  does  not  know  that  Dr.  Pusey's  book  would  not  have 
been  written  when  it  was  but  for  Canon  Farrar's  work  ? 
Again,  one  of  the  passages  from  my  book  on  '  Authority,' 
which  Mr.  Gore  singles  out  for  reprobation,  is  precisely 
that  in  which  I  state  that  my  decision  to  face  the  agony 
of  separation  from  all  my  friends,  was  due  in  the  last 
resort  to  my  feeling  sure  that,  if  I  did  not,  I  might  suffer 
everlasting  separation  from  the  Author  of  all  good.  The 
writer  of  the  articles  on  my  book  in  'Church  Bells,' 
denies  that  I  can  have  been  influenced  by  so  low  a 
motive  as  the  fear  of  hell.  But  think  what  hell  means  ? 
Its  essence  is  the  eternal  loss  of  God !  and  what  love  is 


TJie  Decline  of  Dogma 


i6i 


that,  which  can  bear  the  thought  of  that  loss  without 
agony  ?  The  more  we  love  the  Fountain  of  all  good,  the 
more  we  shall  be  careful  that  we  do  not  miss  the  vision 
and  enjoyment  of  His  Presence  throughout  eternity. 

But  still  more  startling  is  the  mode  of  defence  adopted 
by  the  '  Church  Quarterly  '  reviewer.  I  looked  with  some 
eagerness  to  its  reply;  for  the  '  Church  Quarterly  Review  ' 
has  for  some  years  represented  all  that  is  best  in  the 
Church  of  England.  Its  short  notice  of  my  pamphlet 
was,  indeed,  most  offensive  in  its  tone  ;  but  in  an  'article' 
one  would  expect  to  find  some  thought  and  more 
refined  expressions.  The  latter  I  found.  But  what  shall  I 
say  of  the  thoughtful  care  ?  The  reviezvet^s  reply  consists 
of  a  retort !  He  does  not  deny  the  fact ;  but  he  asks 
me  a  question,  i.e.  whether  I  have  '  really  studied  this 
'  question  in  connection  with  the  history  of  the  Com- 
'  munion  which  I  have  joined?'  He  says,  'We  greatly 
'  doubt  it.' 

Now  before  answering  this  question,  I  desire  to  make 
some  preliminary  remarks.  And  first,  it  ought  to  be  a 
subject  of  the  deepest  regret  to  the  writer  of  the  review 
that  there  should  be  this  imaginary  wavering,  not  merely, 
as  he  admits,  in  the  Establishment,  but  in  the  Catholic 
Church.  He  denies  being  a  Universalist  himself. 
Surely,  then,  he  must  feel  that  the  Church  is  simply 
failing  all  round  in  a  truth  which  lies  at  the  root  of  all 
belief.    What  of  our  Lord's  promises  ? 

Secondly,  his  misrepresentation  of  my  words  on 
another  subject  is  so  inexcusable,  that  I  feel  bound  to 
call  attention  to  it. 

I  have  said  in  my  book  on  '  Authority  '  (p.  5),  that  '  to 
'  talk  of  a  body  without  a  head  in  the  same  order  of  life 
'  as  the  rest  of  the  body,  is  to  use  words  without 
'  meaning.  An  invisible  body  may  have  only  an  invisiljle 
'  head  ;  but  a  visible  body,  to  be  a  body  at  all,  must  have 

M 


The  Dcclhie  of  Dog7na 


'  also  a  visible  head.  The  fact  of  a  headship  is  part  of  the 
'  contents  of  the  term.'    Notice  the  word  '  also.' 

Now  it  is  almost  incredible  that  anyone  who  pretends 
to  deal  honestly. with  an  author's  words  should  quote  the 
first  of  these  sentences,  omit  the  second,  and  interpret 
the  words  '  order  of  life  '  not  of  the  visible  order  of  things 
as  I  expressly  explain  them,  but  of  the  purely  human 
order.  And  so  by  thus  deliberately  altering  my  words 
from  'visible'  to  'human,'  he  succeeds  in  the  jugglery 
of  representmg  me  to  his  readers  as  asserting  that  our 
Lord  is  not,  as  Man,  the  Head  of  the  Church.  Why,  of 
course,  I  imph',  and  /  have  elsewhere  said,  that  He  is  as 
Man  the  ijivisidle  Head.  The  question  is,  whether  our 
Lord  has  appointed  a  visible  representative  of  Himself 
as  Head.  S.  Augustine  says  that  our  Lord  wished  to 
'  make  Peter  one  with  Himself,  that  so  He  might  commend 
'  the  sheep  to  him,  that  he  might  he  the  /lead,  and  bear  the 
'  figure  of  the  body.'  I  have,  therefore,  simply  said  what 
S.  Augustine  said.  There  is  one  Priest,  and  one  Head, 
but  are  there  not  visible  representatives  of  the  one  Priest  ? 
But  the  point  is,  why  does  this  writer  deliberately  cut 
out  my  explanatory  sentence,  and  so  make  me  write 
nonsense  ?  By  what  right  does  he  say  what  is  so  trans- 
parently false  ?  He  returns  to  this  charge  at  the  end  of 
his  article,  when  he  speaks  of  my  '  strange  theories  about 
'  the  a  priori  necessity  of  a  purely  human  head  to  the 
'  Church.'  Strange,  indeed,  would  such  a  nonsensical 
theory  be;  but  stranger  far  is  the  pen-ersity  that  changes 
my  word  '  visible '  into  '  human,'  and  ignores  my  express 
statement  on  p.  21,  'Christ  alone  is  the  Head  of  His 
'  Church.'  Is  it  possible  that  one  who  applies  himself  to 
write  on  what  he  calls  the  Roman  question,  is  so  little 
acquainted  with  the  argument,  which  is  a  commonplace 
of  Catholic  theology,  amongst  the  loci  theologici  of  every 
text-book  in  use  in  Catholic  seminaries,  as  to  mistake 


TJic  Decline  of  Dogma 


163 


my  plain  allusion  to  it  and  to  call  it  a  'novel  theory'? 
I  assumed  that  my  readers  would  be  sufficiently  conver- 
sant with  this  ordinary  argument,  to  dispense  me  from  the 
necessity  of  saying  that  it  was  not  new. 

The  writer  speaks  of  '  Father  Gallwey  going  quite  as 
'  far  as  Mr.  Rivington,'  as  though  he,  too,  were  enunciating 
some  novel  theory,  and  as  though  he  were  denying  the 
Headship  of  our  Lord  as  Man  over  His  Church.  I  need 
hardly  say  that  Father  Gallwey  does  no  such  thing.  He 
believes  in  a  visible  representative  of  the  Invisible  Head. 
We  call  our  Lord  the  Divine  Head,  not  because  He  is 
not  man  ;  but  because  He  is  the  God-man. 

Another  point  to  which  I  will  draw  attention  before 
passing  on,  is  the  first  of  the  three  points  which  my  critic 
takes,  and  on  which  he  thinks  that  he  vanquishes  me. 
He  deals  with  what  I  have  said  in  'Authority,'  p.  57,  viz. 
'  Either  the  Popes  claimed  what  was  their  right  by  the 
'  gift  of  Christ,  or  they  were  one  and  all  impostors  from 
'  the  beginning.'  This  is  in  allusion  to  the  claim  made  by 
the  Popes,  from  the  time  of  S.  Siricius  onwards,  in  their 
genuine  decretals,  to  be  successors  of  S.  Peter  and  the 
appointed  rulers  of  the  Church.  This  they  have  claimed 
all  these  centuries,  as  a  matter  of  faith.  How  does  my 
critic  meet  this  evidence  ?  After  a  very  rude  remark,  and 
an  assertion  of  great  superiority  on  his  own  part  (p.  343, 
penult,  para.),  he  instances  the  very  different  claim  on  the 
part  of  certain  Popes  to  a  deposing  power.  And  he  says 
further  on,  '  The  deposing  power  was  by  the  sixteenth 
'  century  all  but  erected  into  an  article  of  faith.'  'All  but' ; 
it  is,  therefore,  no  parallel  case.  I  am  speaking  of  what 
WAS  all  along  claimed  as  a  matter  of  faith.  And  between 
what  is  claimed  as  such,  and  what  is  not,  there  is  a  chasm. 
The  whole  point  of  my  argument  lies  in  the  magnitude 
of  the  claim — the  claim  to  be  the  successors  of  S.  Peter 
and  the  rulers  of  the  Church  by  saints  and  martyrs,  on  the 

M  2 


164 


TJie  Decline  of  Dogma 


ground  of  a  divine  appointment.  The  critic  has  thus 
produced  no  parallel.  Of  course,  people  can  claim 
things  without  being  impostors,  but  the  question  is 
whether  we  can  suppose  such  men — such  saints  and 
martyrs — to  claim  such  a  position,  one  after  the  other, 
without  their  claim  being  presumably  true.  And  to  this 
question  the  critic  does  not  address  himself. 

His  third  point  is  a  third  misrepresentation.  He 
makes  me  say  that  '  the  mention  of  distinguished  names 
'  is  an  argument  which  tells  in  one  direction,  and  in  one 
'  only.^  Let  him  quote  any  expression  of  mine  which  bears 
out  the  assertion  contained  in  the  words  I  have  italicised. 
He  cannot  do  it. 

I  now  return  to  his  retort  about  the  teaching  concern- 
ing future  punishment. 

We  have  seen  what  is,  alas  !  the  state  of  things  in  the 
Establishment,  but  the  reviewer  thinks  that  I  have  pro- 
ceeded on  '  the  supposition  that  on  quitting  the  English 
'  Church  for  the  Roman,  a  man  escapes  from  all  the  special 
'  difficulties  which  affect  the  theolog)-  of  our  day.'  I  have 
certainly  given  no  cause,  that  I  can  see,  for  such  an 
accusation  in  the  book  in  question.  I  have  there  shown 
reasons  for  believing  that  the  See  of  S.  Peter  is  the  divinely 
appointed  guardian  of  the  Faith,  the  centre  of  unity,  and 
the  source  of  jurisdiction  ;  but  that  is  a  ver)-  different 
matter.  The  only  ground  for  the  reviewers  assertion 
seems  to  be  that  I  have  said  that  the  Church  of  England 
wavers  on  the  subject  of  hell.  But,  being  in  communion 
with  the  See  of  S.  Peter,  does  not,  in  my  opinion,  secure 
an  '  escape  from  all  the  special  difficulties  which  affect 
'  the  theolog)-  of  our  day."  It  places  one  within  the  Ark 
of  Salvation  ;  but  even  the  existence  of  God  has  still  its 
own  difficulties,  only  they  are  difficulties  which,  to  those 
who  remain  docile  to  the  teaching  of  the  one  true  Church 
never  amount  to  a  doubt.    But  he  supposes  that  I  shall 


\ 


TJie  Decline  of  Dogtua  165 


find  similar  difficulties  in  the  way  of  loose  teaching,  and 
the  absence  of  discipline,  in  communion  with  the  See 
of  S.  Peter — that  there  is,  in  fact  (for  it  amounts  to 
that)  no  such  thing  as  a  Church  upon  earth,  to  which 
the  command  applies,  'Hear  the  Church and  he  speaks 
of  my  'seeming  ignorance  of  the  licence  allowed  by 
'  Rome  on  questions  of  eschatology.'  I  don't  know  where 
he  thinks  I  have  lived  all  my  life,  or  how  he  thinks  I 
have  used  my  opportunities  of  observation,  which  have 
certainly  been  more  than  falls  to  the  lot  of  most  people  ; 
and  I  cannot  conceive  where  he  gained  his  own  travesty 
of  the  discipline  of  the  Catholic  Church.  But  I  proceed 
to  answer  his  public  challenge,  when  he  asks  me  this 
question — '  Has  he  really  studied  this  question  '  {i.e.  the 
subject  of  hell)  'in  connection  with  the  history  of  the 
'communion  which  he  has  joined?'  He  adds— though 
on  what  grounds  I  do  not  know — '  we  greatly  doubt  it.' 

I  answer  then,  without  hesitation,  that  I  have  not  only 
studied  this  question  for  years,  especially  since  1865, 
in  connection  with  the  Church  of  Rome  (to  use  his  own 
phrase),  but  I  feel  sure  that  I  have  studied  it  a  great  deal 
more  than  he  can  have  done  himself.  This  is  no  idle 
boast.  Lacordaire's  writings  on  this  subject,  of  which 
my  reviewer  gives  a  second-hand  account,  I  know  well- 
nigh  by  heart.  M.  Nicolas,  on  whom  he  relies,  with 
whose  entire  work  I  am  intimately  acquainted,  and  whose 
splendid  chapter  on  hell  I  analysed  eighteen  years  ago, 
my  reviewer  has  misunderstood  ; '  and  he  has  thoroughly 
misrepresented  the  Abbe  Le  Noir,  through  (I  suspect)  a  lack 
of  acquaintance  with  the  theological  methods  of  Catholic 
writers.    My  answer,  then,  to  the  question  thus  publicly 

'  It  has  been  a  favourite  book  of  mine,  and  was  presented  to 
me,  by  my  own  choice,  by  the  present  liishop  of  Lincoln,  as  a 
parting  gilt,  when  I  left  for  missionary  work  in  India,  but  I  knew 
it  first  in  1870. 


The  Decline  of  Dogma 


put,  is  simply  this,  viz..  I  have  studied  with  pecuHar  care 
the  well-known  Catholic  writers  on  this  subject,  and  not 
only  what  has  been  written  in  past  times,  but  the  more 
modern  and,  I  think  I  may  say,  the  latest  expositions 
of  this  doctrine.  And  the  result  is  that  I  feel  justified  in 
accusing  the  Church  Quarterly  Reviewer  (i)  of  ignoratio 
elenchi  in  dealing  with  my  argument,  and  (2)  of  a  most 
serious  misrepresentation  of  Catholic  writers  on  the  sub- 
ject. For  (i)  I  spoke  in  my  book  of  recent  tendencies 
in  the  Church  of  England  on  the  subject  of  hell.  The 
writer,  in  reply,  deals  only  with  Catholic-French  writers 
of  thirty  years  ago,  and  with  the  way  in  which  they  deal 
with  some  of  the  fringes  of  the  subject.  '  The  French 
'  pulpit,'  he  says,  '  exhibited  a  change,  not  indeed  in 
*  essence,  but  in  mode  of  treatment '  (p.  34).  If  '  not  in 
'  essence,'  where  is  the  relevancy  of  his  remarks? 

Again,  I  deal  throughout  my  remarks  with  the  attitude 
of  the  teaching  body  in  the  Church  of  England.  Does 
any  man  pretend  that  the  teaching  body  of  the  Catholic  and 
Roman  Church  is  not  as  decided  as  ever  on  this  dogma? 
Even  the  late  Mr.  H.  N.  Oxenham,  so  often  led  away  by 
his  wide  sympathies,  deals  with  this  subject  in  the  most 
trenchant  manner.  Few  things  assisted  the  Church  of 
England  more  than  the  articles  and  the  book  which  Mr. 
Oxenham  wrote  on  this  subject.  It  appeared  at  a  time 
when  many  in  the  Church  of  England  were  in  utter  dismay 
at  the  sudden  outburst  of  unbelief  on  this  central  subject. 
The  'Church  Times'  had  thrown  its  aegis  over  Mr.  Juke's 
book  on  Universalism,  which  was  much  more  than 
counteracting  the  effects  of  Dr.  Pusey's  famous  sermon, 
and  many  young  clergymen  were  beginning  to  wonder 
what  was  the  '  Catholic '  line  to  take.  Mr.  Oxenham's 
book,  being  that  of  a  Roman  Catholic,  reassured  them, 
and  showed  them  that  '  the  Church  of  Rome '  had  no 
faltering  voice  on  that  awful  topic,  when  her  least  in- 


Tlic  Decline  of  Dogvia 


tolerant  member  was  so  decided.    And  does  any  man,  I 

repeat,  venture  to  say  that  '  the  Church  of  Rome '  is  not 

to-day  as  '  obstinate,'  in  the  holy  sense  of  that  word,  as 

she  has  been  since  S.  Jerome  condemned  the  doctrine  of  jerome 

Origen  as  involving  the  salvation  even  of  Satan  ?    Will     J""^;,  3. 

the  world  believe  you,  if  you  assert  it  ?  Well,  the  'Church 

'  Quarterly  Review '  has  detected  a  sign  of  change,  and 

the  '  Spectator '  has  indulged  in  an  outburst  of  admiration  Jan.  26, 

at  this  particular  portion  of  the  article.  I  am  overmatched, 

it  informs  its  readers,  because  my  '  excellence  is  that  of  a 

'  preacher,  not  of  a  theologian.'    I  have  met  with  a  theo 

logian,  and  hence  iinpar  co/igressus. 

I  do  not  know  what  the  'Spectator'  means  by  a  theolo- 
gian ;  but  surely  a  theologian  must  be  a  logician  first. 
And  where  is  the  logic  of  my  reviewer?  He  is  dealing 
w  ith  my  assertion  that  the  Church  of  England  is  'waver- 
'  ing '  on  the  subject  of  hell.  He  retorts  that  'during  the 
'  earlier  half  of  the  century'  a  French  barrister  wrote  some- 
thing about  modern  minds  which  bears  upon  the  question 
at  issue  ;  and  also  a  French  abbe  wrote  an  article  in  a 
theological  dictionary  which  shows  'wavering  on  the 
'subject  of  hell.'  And  he  supposes  that  some  articles  by 
Father  Clarke  show  that  '  the  discussions  of  the  present 
'century  on  this  solemn  theme  have  seriously  modified 
'  the  Roman  theology  in  many  quarters.'  And  that  is  his 
proof  that  the  present  tendency  of  the  Catholic  Roman 
Church  is  the  same,  or  nearly  the  same,  as  that  of  the 
Church  of  England  ;  at  any  rate,  sufficiently  the  same  to 
have  supplied  me  with  a  cogent  reason,  if  I  had  only 
known  it,  for  pausing  before  I  entered  a  fold  where  the 
shepherds  are  so  remiss.  He  remarks  upon  my  '  seem- 
'  ing  ignorance  of  the  licence  allowed  by  Rome  on  ques- 
'  tions  of  eschatology.' 

Let  us,  then,  examine  this  French  barrister  and  this 
French  Abbe  and  Father  Clarke,  whose  writings,  we  are 


The  Decline  of  Dogma 


told,  reveal  a  'revolution'  (p.  346,  last  line)  in  the  teaching 
of  the  Cathohc  Church  on  the  subject  of  hell. 

Happily,  in  the  two  first  cases,  the  reviewer  quotes 
the  damning  words  on  pages  348-350. 

M.  Nicolas,  he  tells  us,  '  feels  compelled  to  declare — ' 
we  shall  expect  something  that  it  must  have  cost  him  a 
great  deal  to  declare.  It  is  this  :  *  Amongst  the  moderns 
'  this  dogma  has  become  the  most  insurmountable,  I  do  not 
'  say  to  the  reason  of  the  unbeliever,  but  to  the  faith  of  the 
'  Christian  ;  and  it  is  not  uncommon  to  find  souls  who 
'  could  believe  all  the  rest  of  Christianity,  and  who  are  held 
'  in  check  in  the  presence  of  this  one  article  of  faith  alone.' 

Further  on,  it  is  said,  still  as  a  sign  of  the  revolution 
'  which  has  affected  questions  which  concern  eschato- 
'logy,'  that  M.  Nicolas  did  not  refrain  from  stating  in  a 
note,  '  le  point  le  plus  insaisissable  du  dogme  de  Tenfer,  et 
'  qui  est  comme  le  centre  de  son  obscurite,  viz. :  the  diffi- 
culty of  reconciling  it  with  the  foreknowledge  and  good- 
ness of  God,  and  of  leaving  it  as  a  myster}'  by  the  side  of 
that  concerning  our  freedom  and  the  Divine  sovereignty ' — ■ 
(p.  349),  as  if  S.  Thomas  had  not  done  the  same. 

I  ask,  what  in  the  world  has  this  to  do  with  the  ques- 
tion before  us  ?  How  does  this  show  that  the  teaching 
body  of  the  Church  is  wavering  ?  The  existence  of  evil 
is  a  still  greater  difficulty  to  many  minds  ;  and  the  doc- 
trine of  everlasting  punishment  is  one  form  of  that  insoluble 
difficulty.  S.  Augustine  found  the  existence  of  evil  an 
insurmountable  difficulty  to  many  minds.  Did  this  prove 
that  the  Church  was  wavering  on  the  subject  ?  Does  the 
Church  the  less  teach  it,  because  it  is  so  insurmountable 
to  many  minds  ?  M.  Nicolas  in  the  first  passage  is  speak- 
ing of  the  effect  that  the  Christian  conception  of  love  has 
had  on  men's  minds,  and  the  difficulty  it  has  raised  on 
this  subject  of  punishment.  But  hell  is  not  the  less 
taught  for  that.    '  He  begins,'  my  critic  says,  '  in  what 


TJie  Decline  of  Dogma 


169 


'  may  almost  be  called  an  apologetic  tone.'  In  other  words 
he  begins  gently.  But  what,  I  ask  again,  has  this  to  do 
with  the  question  before  us  ? 

We  may  dismiss,  then,  the  first  reference  to  M.  Nicolas 
as  an  ignoratio  elenchi. 

And  the  same  may  be  said  of  the  way  in  which  the 
writer  introduces  M.  Nicolas's  observation  that  the 
difficulty  of  reconciling  the  doctrine  of  everlasting  punish- 
ment with  the  foreknowledge  and  the  goodness  of  God  is 
'comme  le  centre  de  son  obscurite.'  M.  Nicolas  simply 
adduces  this  as  a  difficulty  of  the  same  nature  as  the 
difficulty  of  reconciling  the  co-existence  of  the  infinite 
and  finite — a  difficulty,  but  no  reason  for  doubt.  Mr. 
Mansel  might  with  as  much  reason  be  accused  of  not 
being  quite  as  firm  in  his  teaching  on  the  existence  of 
God  because  he  speaks  of  the  co-existence  of  the  finite 
and  the  infinite  as  the  riddle  of  philosophy  since  the 
birthday  of  human  thought.  M.  Nicolas  shows  that  it 
is  not  a  difficulty  sufficient  to  counterbalance  the  over- 
whelming reasons  for  believing  in  hell. 

And  yet  in  this  the  reviewer  actually  discerns  a  change 
of  tone  in  Catholic  teaching  sufficient  to  justify  his  strange 
assertion  about  the  'hcence  allowed  by  Rome  on  the 
'  question  of  eschatology ' — a  licence  which  he  compares 
with  the  state  of  things  I  have  described  in  the  Church 
of  England.  All  that  he  has  as  yet  adduced  surely  goes 
to  show  that  Catholic  teachers  set  to  work  at  once  to 
remove  the  difficulties  that  beset  modern  minds  in  the 
way  of  receiving  the  dogma  of  eternal  punishment.  What 
has  this  to  do  with  laxity,  or  allowed  licence,  or  faltering  ? 
What  is  it  but  a  symptom  of  the  desire  to  show  that,  in 
spite  of  difficulties  raised,  it  is  true  ? 

The  writer's  reference  to  Father  Clarke's  articles  in  the 
' Month '  seems  to  me  to  be  stranger  still.  He  says  :  'If 
'  we  have  understood  aright  the  articles  of  Father  Clarke,' 


TJic  Decline  of  Dogma 


(i.e.  in  the  'Month'  for  1882,  January,  February,  March), 
'  and  the  conversaiion  of  two  gifted  and  devoted  members 
'  of  the  Roman  Church,  we  should  say  that  the  discussions 
'  of  the  present  century  on  this  solemn  theme  had  seriously 
'  modified  the  Roman  theology  in  many  quarters.'  I 
make  bold  to  say  that  the  writer  has  in  all  probability 
seriously  misunderstood  the  'two  gifted  and  devoted 
'  members,'  judging  from  the  way  in  which  he  has  mis- 
understood Father  Clarke's  articles  in  the  '  Month.' 
Those  articles  announce  and  support  the  most  decided 
teaching  to  be  found  anywhere  on  the  subject  of  ever- 
lasting punishment.  And  they  teach  absolutely  nothing 
that  is  new.  They  betray  a  mind  (if  I  may  be  permitted 
to  say  so)  thoroughly  stored  with  Catholic  theology  and 
Catholic  philosophy,  and  a  certain  facility  of  expression 
which  enables  the  author  to  translate  the  old  faith  into 

modern  language  without  losing  one  line  or  shade  of  its 
traditional  essence. 

Here  are  the  propositions  which  Father  Clarke  sets 

out  to  prove.    I  give  them  in  his  own  words. 

'  I.  It  is  because  God  is  God,  infinite  in  all  His 

'  attributes,  infinite  in  His  love  amongst  the  rest,  that  the 

'punishment  of  sinners  lasts  for  ever.' 

Not  much  'wavering,'  or  'revolution,'  or  'serious 

'  modification '  here. 

'  2.  Those  who  would  limit  the  duration  of  hell 

'  degrade  their  God  instead  of  exalting  Him  ;  nay,  their 

'  arguments  tend  to  abolish  God  altogether. 

'  3.  The  essential  evil  of  hell  does  not  proceed  from 

'  the  action  of  God,  but  from  the  will  of  man,  so  that 

'  it  may  be  truly  said  that  God  is  not  the  creator  of 

'  hell. 

'  4.  The  abolition  of  hell  would  be  a  misfortune  to 
'  man,  inasmuch  as  it  would  involve  him  in  evils  greater 
'  than  any  to  which  he  is  now  liable. 


TJie  Decline  of  Dogma 


171 


'  5  In  the  condemnation  of  sinners  to  eternal  misery 
'  there  is  no  sort  of  injustice  and  cruelty. 

'  6.  The  objections  to  eternal  punishment  are  not 
'  based  on  any  rational  or  logical  argument,  but  on  a 
'  sentimental  anthropomorphism.' 

These  are  the  propositions  which  Father  Clarke 
maintains,  and  it  is  to  three  articles  proving  their  truth 
that  the  reviewer  refers  us  as  an  instance  of  the  '  serious 
'  modification  '  which  '  Roman  theology '  has  undergone 
'  in  many  quarters  '  (p.  349). 

Now,  in  reading  through  these  articles,  which  betray 
no  sign  of  wavering,  no  sort  of  '  modification'  of  '  Roman 
'theology,'  no  faint  semblance  of  'revolution,'  I  noted 
down  passages  in  which  I  remember  to  have  read  argu- 
ments similar  to  those  used,  and  restated  (without  the 
least  plagiarism)  and  admirably  adapted  by  Father  Clarke. 
There  is  not  an  argument,  as  it  happens,  which  I  could 
not  parallel  from  older  writers.  The  arguments  of  the 
first  article  appear  in  germ  in  Lancicius  and  Bossuet. 
Those  of  the  second  are  to  be  found  in  the  Ignatian 
exercises,  especially  in  the  exposition  called  the  '  Medulla 
'  Asceseos,'  in  Lenfant's  celebrated  sermon,  which  is  said 
to  have  staggered  Diderot,  in  many  old  treatises  on  death, 
and  in  S.  Thomas,  and  in  Bossuet's  sermons  on  habitual 
sin  and  the  last  day,  and  in  S.  Augustine  ;  that  is  to  say, 
that  each  argument  as  I  read  them  reminded  me  of  pas- 
sages from  one  or  other  of  these  which  I  had  read  years 
ago.  In  the  last  there  is  nothing  that  could,  to  the  merest 
tyro  in  theology,  read  like  '  revolution,'  or  '  wavering,' 
or  'modification.'  Here,  for  instance,  is  one  passage: 
'  And  the  most  effective  feature  in  the  picture  of  hell  is 
'  its  eternity — for  ever,  never,  for  ever,  never.  Protract  it 
'  as  you  like,  let  it  last  for  millions  and  billions  of  ages, 
'  yet  if  once  you  let  the  sinner  think  or  hope  that  that  long 
'  suffering  will  be  succeeded  by  an  eternity  of  happiness 


172 


Tlie  Decline  of  Dogma 


'  (or  even  by  an  annihilation  or  absorption  into  the  Deity), 
'  you  have  robbed  hell  of  its  chief  terror,  you  have  opened 
'  the  door  to  the  sinner  seeking  some  excuse  for  his  sin.' 

Does  this  show  any  '  serious  modification  '  of  '  Roman 
'  theolog)- '  ? 

The  one  sentence  which  the  reviewer  quotes  can 
actually  be  paralleled  from  ]\Iassillon  himself  in  his 
sermon  on  'Final  Impenitence.' 

The  writer  then  proceeds  with  another  question, 
which  also  has  nothing  to  do  with  our  subject.  Our 
subject  is  hell,  pure  and  simple.  It  is  no  part  of  the 
Church's  teaching  concerning  hell  that  such  and  such  a 
number  of  souls  will  be  found  there.  Massillon  had  his 
'  opinion,'  and  Lacordaire  had  his  ;  but  they  were  only 
their  opinions,  as  to  a  point  that  does  not  ^oittr/i  the 
essence  of  the  doctrine.  Pere  Gratry,  amongst  others, 
pointed  this  out  in  his  little  Catechism.  Father  Faber 
held  Lacordaire's  opinion  on  the  number  of  the  saved, 
and  no  one  will  accuse  Father  Faber  of  not  ha\"ing 
preached  on  hell  in  the  most  vivid  and  awful  terms  that 
our  language  can  command  (see  his  Conferences). 

The  note  on  page  349  is  another  conspicuous  in- 
stance of  the  same  logical  fallacy  of  ig7ioratio  elenchi. 
Father  Clarke  says  nothing  that  Pere  Lenfant  and 
hosts  of  other  writers  have  not  said  in  substance  200 
years  ago.  The  teaching  that  '  all  who  have  made  their 
'  act  of  submission,  and  persevere  in  it,'  will  (after  their 
purgatory)  be  classed  with  the  Saints,  is  nothing  new. 
It  is  merely  a  restatement  of  what  has  always  been 
generally  believed.  And  when  the  writer  adds,  '  But  it 
needs  some  explanation,  as  M.  Nicolas  has  shown,  to 
reconcile  it  with  the  maxim  "Extra  ecclesiam  nulla 
'  "  salus," '  I  ask  again,  what  has  that  to  do  with  the 
question  before  us  ?  Does  not  the  doctrine  of  the  Holy 
Trinity  need  '  some  explanation '  when  we  have  to  do 


The  Decline  of  Dogma 


173 


with  so  many  Unitarians  in  these  times?  But  is  it  the 
less  taught  because  it  is  sought  in  every  way  to  explain 
it,  and  to  show  its  harmonies  with  the  deliverances  of 
our  reason  ? 

But  let  us  come  to  the  writer's  '  piece  de  resistance  '  : 
and  here  we  have  a  right  to  express  our  indignation. 
The  passage  contains  a  most  serious  misrepresentation. 

Let  us  remember  that  the  writer  affects  to  show  that 
I  was  ignorant  of  the  state  of  things  in  the  Church  of 
Rome  on  this  subject  of  hell,  or  I  should  have  known 
that  there,  too,  there  has  been  of  late  years  some  waver- 
ing. Most  people  will  smile  at  his  simplicity,  but  I  am 
obliged  to  take  his  assertion  aji  grand serieux.  He  refers 
then  to  an  article  by  M.  le  Noir  in  the  Abbe  Migne's 
'  Encyclopedie  Theologique,'  written  in  1856.  Now 
would  anyone  have  supposed  that  this  wriier  (whom  he 
adduces  as  his  authority  for  the  astounding  statement, 
that  there  are  signs  of  a  state  of  things  in  the  Catholic 
(Roman)  Church  similar  to  what  I  have  described  in  the 
Anglican  Establishment,  on  the  subject  of  hell)  actually 
holds  the  following  as  a  matter  of  faith,  viz. : 

'  Le  Christ  viendra,  a  la  fin  du  sifecle,  juger  les 
'vivants  et  les  morts  ;  et  tous  paraitront  a  son  tribunal, 
'  avec  leur  propre  corps,  pour  recevoir  chacun  selon  leurs 
'oeuvres  :  les  uns,  pour  leurs  oeuvres  mauvaises,  la  peine 
'perpetuelle  ;  les  autres,  pour  les  oeuvres  bonnes,  la  gloire 
'sempiternelle'  (p.  782). 

'Christ  will  come,  at  the  end  of  the  world,  to  judge 
'the  living  and  the  dead;  and  all  shall  appear  at  His 
'tribunal,  with  their  own  body,  to  receive  each  according 
'  to  their  works  :  some,  for  their  evil  deeds,  perpetual 
'  punishment;  the  others,  for  their  good  works,  everlasting 
'glory.' 

Tiiis,  iie  tells  us,  is  of  faith  ;  and  this  sentence,  to- 
gether with  another  equally  strong,  is,  he  also  tells  us, 


1/4 


The  Decline  of  Dogma 


constructed  out  of  '  les  expressions  meme  des  symboles 
'  et  des  Conciles.' 

The  only  other  mention  he  makes  of  '  formal  defini- 
'  tions '  occurs  in  dealing  with  certain  expressions  concern- 
ing the  immortality  of  the  soul,  which  resemble  Origen's 
teaching,  and  which  he  tells  us,  though  condemned  in 
substance,  are  not  so  in  set  terms — implicitly,  but  not 
explicitly.  He  does  not  mention  the  Fifth  (Ecumenical 
Council  in  this  connection  ;  this  is  foisted  in  by  the 
reviewer.  He  nowhere  argues  (as  the  reviewer  says 
he  does)  concerning  the  lost,  that  their  '  infernal  pains  will 
'  not  be  eternal  absolutely.'  This  is  simply  a  piece  of  false 
accusation  on  the  part  of  the  reviewer,  who  (I  have  little 
doubt)  was  thinking  of  a  passage  in  which  M.  Le  Xoir 
discusses  a  wholly  different  matter,  viz.  the  curious 
question  as  to  whether  God  could,  exceptionally  and  by 
miracle,  take  a  soul  out  of  hell.  Or  else  he  alludes  to 
the  subject  of  the  mitigation  of  the  pains  of  the  lost.  On 
this  latter  point,  W.  Le  Noir  is  careful  to  show  that  his 
own  opinion  in  no  way  impinges  on  that  which  he  gives  as 
of  faith — viz.,  the  everlasting  punishment  of  the  finally 
impenitent.  When  he  does  mention  the  Fifth  Oecumenical 
Council  it  is  to  say,  '  Parmi  les  quinze  canons  contra 
'la  theorie  dOrigene  attribues  au  cinquieme  Concile 
'  general,  mais  qui  ne  se  trouvent  pas  dans  les  Actes  de  ce 
'  Concile,'  ii:c. 

All  this  the  reviewer  twists  into  a  shameless  distortion 
of  M.  Le  Noir's  admirable  and  most  orthodox  disquisi- 
tion. He  says  that  M.  Le  Noir  argues  that  '  even  if  the 
'  views  of  Origen  underwent  condemnation  by  the  Fifth 
'  Oicumenical  Council,  such  a  condemnation  would  not 
'  imply  the  formal  definition,  as  an  article  of  faith,  of  eternal 
'punishment,  and  that  these  infernal  pains  will  not  be 
'  eternal  absolutely.'  We  ought  to  have  had  chapter  and 
verse  for  such  a  statement.    But  it  is  a  thorough  perver- 


The  Decline  of  Dogma  175 


sion  of  the  article  in  question.  The  Ablje  has  begun  by 
giving  the  definition  of  eternal  punishment  as  gathered 
from  the  expressions  of  'les  symboles  et  les  Conciles,' 
which  we  have  given  above.  And  he  adopts  as  his  own 
the  following  celebrated  passage  from  Massillon's  sermon 
'  Sur  le  Mauvais  Riche.' 

'  L'ame  coupable  una  fois  separee  du  corps,  les 
'  fantomes  qui  I'abusaient  s'evanouiront ;  tout  Temportera, 
'  tout  la  precipitera  dans  le  sein  de  Dieu  ;  et  le  poids  de 
'son  iniquite  la  fera,  sans  cesse,  retomber  sur  elle-meme; 
'  eternellement  forcee  de  prendre  I'essor  vers  le  ciel, 
'  eternellement  repoussee  vers  rabirae.' 

'  The  guilty  soul  once  separated  from  the  body,  the 
'  phantoms  that  abused  it  will  vanish  ;  all  will  bear  it  on, 
'  all  will  precipitate  it  into  the  bosom  of  God  ;  and  the 
'  weight  of  its  iniquity  will  make  it  ceaselessly  fall  back  on 
'  itself ;  eternally  forced  to  soar  towards  heaven,  eternally 
'  thrust  back  towards  the  abyss.' 

Is  this  wavering  on  the  subject  of  hell  ?  Again  the 
Abbe  says,  '  Depuis  la  controverse  suscitee  sur  cette 
'question  par  Origene,  I'enseignement  universe!  de  la 
'  Chretiente  orthodoxe  est  tellement  developpe  et  positif, 
'  qu'il  est  impossible  d'y  voir  autre  chose  qu'une  separation 
' veritablement  eternelle  de  la  categoric  den  bas  avec 
'  les  autres.' 

'  Since  the  controversy  raised  on  this  question  by 
'  Origen,  the  universal  teaching  of  orthodox  Christianity 
'  has  been  so  developed  and  positive,  that  it  is  impossible 
'  to  see  in  it  anything  but  a  separation  really  eternal 
'  between  those  below  and  the  rest.' 

Could  anything  be  clearer  than  this  ? 

And  again  I  ask.  Is  this  '  wavering  on  the  subject  of 
'heir? 

And  once  more  : 

'  Sur  I'enfer,  nous  avons  dit  ce  qu'il  faut  pcnser 


176 


TJie  Decline  of  Dogma 


du point  capital,  celui  de  la  distinction  eternelle  de  cette 
'categorie  d'avec  celle  du  del' 

'  On  hell,  we  have  said  what  we  have  to  think  as  to 
'  the  capital  point,  that  of  the  eternal  distinction  between 
'  this  category  and  that  of  heaven.' 

What  he  says  about  the  theory  of  mitigation  does 
not  touch  that '  capital  point '  of  the  permanent  distinction 
between  the  good  and  the  bad  in  the  other  world,  and  is 
a  theory  which  he  reminds  us  was  held  by  Ravignan  as 
the  traditional  belief  of  the  Jesuit  Society,  and  was  de- 
clared exempt  from  censure  by  the  Congregation  of  the 
Index. 

Here  is,  then,  positive  proof  that  the  Abbe  Le  Noir  is 
giving  us  (i)  nothing  new,  nothing  which  points  to  a 
modern  tendency,  and  (2)  nothing  which  is  contrary  to  the 
'  capital  point '  of  the  whole  matter,  viz.,  the  everlasting 
distinction  between  the  lost  and  the  saved. 

The  reviewer's  contention  is,  as  I  have  said,  simply 
a  false  accusation.  This  false  statement  would  no  doubt 
have  been  repeated  from  lip  to  lip  ;  and  done  good  ser- 
vice in  some  Plain  Reasons  against  joining  the  Church  of 
Rome.  Nor  can  I  altogether  hope  to  have  despatched 
it.  When  the  '  Church  Quarterly '  writes  like  this,  and 
the  '  Guardian  '  praises  the  article,  though  guardedly,  and 
the  '  Spectator  '  calls  our  attention  to  this  particular  pas- 
sage, with  such  admiration,  even  indulging  in  personal 
comments,  it  is  too  much  to  hope  that  the  misstatement 
will  not  have  a  life.  But  there  may  be  some  who  will 
read  this  and  feel  '  Anglican  defences  '  are  not  such  safe 
things  as  they  supposed. 

Before  closing  this  chapter  I  will  notice  two  differences 
in  the  attitude  of  a  Catholic  towards  this  awful  verity,  or 
rather  two  different  points  in  which  he  differs  from  an 
Anglican  in  respect  to  it. 

As  an  Anglican,  I  felt  the  vital  character  of  this  soul- 


TJie  Decline  of  Dogma 


177 


subduing  truth,  and  its  close  affinity  with  all  other  portions 
of  the  Christian  revelation.    But  I  never  could  feel  sure 
that  it  would  not  be  tampered  with  in  time  to  come. 
My  ground  of  rest  (and  I  have  often  expressed  it  to 
others)  was  that  there  was  one  portion  (as  I  then  called 
it)  of  the  Catholic  Church,  which  would  never  yield  one 
jot  or  tittle.    The  obstinacy  (as  perhaps  in  other  points  I 
should  have  irreverently  called  it)  of  the  Church  in  com- 
munion with  the  See  of  S.  Peter  would  be  its  safeguard 
there.    And  its  persistency  might  keep  alive  the  faith  on 
this  point  amongst  English  Churchmen.    It  was  at  one 
time  only  too  likely  that  the  Athanasian  Creed  would  dis- 
appear from  its  present  position  in  the  services  of  the 
English  Church.    Who  does  not  know  how  sanguine  the 
late  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  was  about  this  ?    He  told 
a  friend  of  mine  that  but  for  the  difficulties  raised  by  such 
men  as  my  friend,  it  would  have  been  done,  and  peace 
(he  asserted)  would  have  been  secured.    Now,  anyone 
who  was  conversant  with  the  currents  of  opinion  in  the 
English  Church  knew  well  that  the  elimination  of  the 
Athanasian  Creed  from  her  services  meant  the  freedom  of 
her  members  from  the  necessity  of  asserting  so  plainly  the 
doctrine  of  everlasting  punishment.    It  meant,  too,  as  the 
corollary  of  that,  dogmatic  indifference.    It  is,  alas  !  only 
too  certain  that  since  that  time,  although  a  happy  victory 
was  gained  in  favour  of  its  retention,  still  the  doctrine  of 
Universalism,  in  more  or  less  pronounced  forms,  has  gained 
ground  in  the  English  Church.    The  most  orthodox  on 
this  point  used  to  be  those  most  eager  to  raise  the  ritual 
of  their  churches.    There  are  signs  that  this  is  no  longer 
the  case.    I  have  given  my  experience  of  the  last  place 
in  which  I  ministered,  in  my  book  on  '  Authority,'  p.  1 4.. 
I  might  add  that  in  the  last  place  but  one  in  which  I 
ministered,  the  two  best  preachers  in  the  place  were  both 
conspicuously  unsound  on  this  question,  and  one  of  them 

N 


178 


The  Dedvie  of  Dogma 


was  a  ver)-  High  Churchman.  He  heard  confessions,  and 
exceeded  all  the  rest  in  that  place  in  his  external  rever- 
ence. Again,  few  things  startled  me  so  much  on  return- 
ing from  India,  as  finding  that  a  friend  of  mine,  who  had 
written  most  violently  against  this  same  doctrine,  had  been 
appointed  temporarily  to  hear  the  confessions  of  a  large 
sisterhood.  It  was  thought  that  his  heterodoxy  on  this 
subject  would  not  affect  his  dealing  with  individual  souls, 
whilst  in  a  small  community  to  which  I  once  belonged, 
five,  at  least,  of  the  clerg)'  became  Universalists. 

I  make  no  apolog)-  for  stating  my  experience  on  this 
matter.  My  reviewer  has  challenged  me,  and  in  con- 
nection with  what  I  consider  a  libel  on  the  Catholic 
Church.  I  will  tell  him  then  freely  what  I  feel  in  the 
way  of  difference  as  to  this  matter  in  what  he  calls  '  the 
'community  which  I  have  joined.' 

It  is  this  :  The  truth  rests  on  a  different  basis.  The 
authority  that  I  acknowledged  before  was  our  Lord's  plain 
words,  as  interpreted,  'as  I  thought,'  by  the  common 
consent  of  the  Church  diffusive.  But  it  was  what  '  I 
'  thought.'  I  had  picked  out  this  interpretation  for  myself ; 
with  the  help,  of  course,  of  Dr.  Pusey  or  others.  I  held 
it  thoroughly.  But  how  changed  is  all  this  in  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church  !  There  is  now  an  indefinable,  spiritual, 
overawing  something,  which  speaks  with  the  same  tone 
of  voice,  with  that  same  indescribable  '  authorit)','  with 
which  our  Lord  spoke  on  the  Mount.  In  other  words. 
Holy  Church  has  a  living  Voice.  That  voice  is  heard  not 
only  in  a  formula  which  enshrines  in  few  words  the  pro- 
position, to  be  asserted  by  the  intellect,  and  professed 
with  the  life,  but  it  is  in  the  very  air,  breathing  its  sweet 
command  into  the  marrow  of  one's  being,  and  imparting 
to  the  various  avenues,  with  which  it  reaches  the  ear  of 
the  soul,  its  own  character  of  infallibility,  its  own  wit- 
ness to  its  divine  self.   The  magisterium  of  the  Church  is 


The  Decline  of  Dogma 


179 


round  about  us,  and  we  feel  its  penetrating  power  and  bend 
to  its  slightest  whisper.  It  is  the  same  Lord  that  speaks 
in  the  Holy  Gospel,  and  in  the  living  voice  of  Holy  Church. 

II.  Another  point  of  difference  in  our  attitude  towards 
the  subject  of  hell  is  this  :  We  Catholics  believe  in 
Purgatory  and  the  sacrifice  of  the  Mass.  We  are  con- 
tinually occupied  with  suffrages  for  the  souls  of  those 
whom  we  have  known  and  loved.  We  are  perpetually 
to  be  found  at  the  'sacrifices  of  Masses,'  in  which  we 
know  Christ  is  offered  for  the  living  and  the  dead. 
Winning  remission  of  temporal  punishment  or  its  equiva- 
lent, for  those  who  have  died  in  a  state  of  grace,  but  are, 
perchance,  unfit  for  the  bliss  of  the  Vision — this  is  one 
great  work  of  our  lives.  The  Church  is  ever  at  it.  In  a 
word,  our  eschatology  is  the  basis  of  continuous  action. 
We  do  not  idly,  or  dreadfully,  or  absorbingly,  dwell  on 
hell.  We  believe  in  it,  but  we  believe  also  in  the  power 
of  those  '  sacrifices  of  Masses '  on  behalf  of  those  who, 
though  not  in  hell,  have  narrowly  escaped  it,  as  well  as 
for  those  who  did  live  to  God,  but  ever  so  little  offended 
His  justice  and  merited  His  wrath.  We  know,  too,  how 
one  was  nearly  being  beatified,  but  one  thing  proved 
fatal  to  the  Church's  recognition  of  his  sanctity.  He 
had  once  pronounced  a  final  condemnation  on  an  in- 
dividual who  died  on  the  scaffold  with  the  words  of 
impenitence  on  his  lips.  He  went  beyond  the  charity  of 
the  Church.  And  so  what  individual  is  there,  unless 
it  be  Judas  himself,  for  whom  we  would  not  breathe  a 
suffrage  tremulous  with  some  faint  hope  ? 

Our  thoughts,  therefore,  on  future  punishment  take 
in  the  great  whole  of  those,  on  the  one  hand,  who  may 
have  lost  their  souls,  about  whom  (whoever  they  be)  we 
mean  to  be  silent,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  that  vast 
number  who  lost  here  much  grace  and  merited  much 
penalty,  but  did  not  lose  all. 

N  2 


TJie  Decline  of  Dogma 


Hence  the  thought  of  hell,  whilst  it  operates  to 
produce  the  fruit  of  holy  fear  in  ourselves,  and  increases 
our  desire  to  save  others,  provokes  in  the  same  breath, 
so  to  say,  the  thought  of  our  duties  to  those  who  are 
detained  for  their  faults  in  the  endurance  of  chastising 
love.  It  is  the  daily  voice  of  the  whole  Church,  and 
not  the  opinion  of  some  individuals,  tolerated  by  some, 
denounced  by  others. 

Two  undergraduates  were  returning  home  to  their 
college  in  Oxford,  one  Sunday  evening  in  i860,  from  a 
lecture  in  the  hall  of  another  college,  whose  Principal 
afterwards  made  his  submission  to  the  Holy  See.  The 
lecture  had  been  on  a  passage  in  S.  Paul's  Epistle  to 
Timothy,  and  the  lecturer  spoke  in  favour  of  prayers  for 
the  faithful  departed.  One  of  these  undergraduates 
determined  from  that  night  to  pray  for  the  soul  of  his 
mother,  who  was  dead,  and  he  has  since  been  received 
into  the  Catholic  Church.  The  other  expressed  his 
distress  at  the  idea  of  such  teaching  from  a  clerg}'man  of 
the  Church  of  England.  His  father  was  a  clerg\man, 
his  tutors  were  clerg}Tnen,  he  had  numerous  friends 
among  the  clergy.  No  one  of  them  taught  the  advisability, 
or  even  the  legitimacy,  of  prayers  for  the  dead.  When 
pressed  by  his  friend  with  the  argument  that,  whether 
the  clerg)-  taught  it  or  not,  they  had  seen  that  night  that 
it  was  countenanced  in  Holy  Scripture,  his  reply  was, 
'  But  if  it  is  true,  what  are  we  to  think  of  our  neglect,  and 
'  of  the  neglect  of  the  Church  of  England  for  300  years  ?  ' 
He  remained  loyal  to  the  traditional  teaching  of  the 
Church  of  England,  which  ignored  such  prayer,  and  he 
was  ultimately  appointed  bishop.' 

'  One  well-known  passage  was,  doubtless,  originally  intended 
by  some  to  cover  such  prayers,  and  accepted  by  others  as  not  neces- 
sarily teaching  their  lawfulness.  The  effect  of  this  single  ambiguous 
phrase  was  to  stifle  such  prayer  for  300  years. 


Tlie  Decline  of  Dogma 


i8i 


But  in  ignoring  such  prayers  all  these  centuries, 
omitting  them  from  her  public  services,  the  Church  of 
England  has  loosened  men's  hold  on  the  doctrine  of 
everlasting  punishment.  Without  suffrages  for  those 
who  are  detained  from  the  Beatific  Vision  through  the 
stains  contracted  in  this  life,  hell  must  become  in  a 
community  at  large  either  the  detestable  heresy  of  the 
Calvinist,  or  a  faint  opinion — weak  enough  to  vanish 
before  the  comprehensiveness  and  toleration  of  kindly 
hearts.  The  practice  of  prayers  for  the  dead  is  doubtless 
on  the  increase  in  the  Church  of  England,  but  it  tends 
to  become,  not  an  accompaniment,  but  a  substitute  for 
the  doctrine  of  everlasting  punishment,  and  it  is  not  part 
and  parcel  of  her  public  life. 

I  conclude,  then,  that  this  reviewer  has  not  proved 
his  point.  As  proof  of  a  change  in  the  Church's  teaching, 
he  has  simply  adduced  some  passages  from  Catholic 
writers,  who  teach  the  same  as  Catholic  writers  have 
taught  much  more  than  a  thousand  years  ago,  and  who 
lay  it  down  as  an  article  of  faith  that  the  punishment  of 
the  finally  impenitent  is  perpetual  and  everlasting.  And 
his  accusation  that  I  had  not  considered  the  question  of 
the  state  of  things  in  this  matter  in  the  Catholic,  or,  as 
he  would  call  it,  the  Roman  Catholic,  Church  remains 
unproved. 


l82 


Puscy  and  Laud 


CHAPTER  X. 

PUSEY    AND  LAUD. 

Hardly  anj'  clergj'man  of  a  certain  standing  can  con- 
sider the  question  of  submission  to  the  Hoh'  See  without 
having  the  argument  forced  upon  him,  '  Dr.  Pusey  re- 
'  mained  -w  here  he  was  :  why  cannot  you  ? ' 

Dependence  upon  Dr.  Pusey  has  been  for  some  time 
a  sort  of  '  note '  of  the  Church  of  England.  Cardinal 
Newman  ^vrites  to  him  :  'You  are  not  an  individual  ; 
'  from  early  years  you  have  devoted  yourself  to  the  estab- 
'  lished  Church,  and  after  between  forty  and  fifty  years  of 
*  unremitting  labour  in  its  service,  your  roots  and  your 
'  branches  stretch  out  through  ever}-  portion  of  its  large 
'  territor)-.  You,  more  than  anyone  else  alive,  have  been 
'  the  present  and  untiring  agent  by  whom  a  great  work  has 
'  been  effected  in  it  ;  and,  far  more  than  is  usual,  you 
'  have  received  in  j'our  lifetime,  as  well  as  merited,  the 
'  confidence  of  your  brethren.  You  cannot  speak  merely 
'  for  yourself  ;  your  antecedents,  3'our  existing  influence, 
'  are  a  pledge  to  us,  that  what  you  may  determine  will  be 
'  the  determination  of  a  multitude.  Numbers,  too,  for 
'whom  you  cannot  properly  be  said  to  speak,  will  be 
'moved  by  your  authority  or  your  arguments  ;  and 
'  numbers,  again,  who  are  of  a  school  more  recent  than 
'  your  o\vn,  and  who  are  only  not  your  followers,  because 
'they  have  outstripped  you  in  their  free  speeches  and 
'  demonstrative  acts  in  our  behalf,  will  for  the  occasion, 


Pusey  and  Laud 


'  accept  you  as  their  spokesman.  There  is  no  one  any- 
'  where  among  ourselves,  in  your  own  Ijody,  or,  I  suppose, 
'  in  the  Greek  Church,  who  could  affect  so  large  a  circle 
'  of  men,  so  virtuous,  so  able,  so  learned,  so  zealous,  as 
'  come  more  or  less  under  your  influence.'' 

Catholics  must  sometimes  have  wondered  what  it 
was  in  Dr.  Pusey  by  wliich  we  were  so  fascinated  some 
years  ago.  I  can,  of  course,  only  speak  of  my  own  ex- 
perience, and  from  observation  of  a  limited  circle  of  his 
admirers,  those  of  my  own  standing.  For  myself  I  can 
say  that  two  things  specially  attracted  me  in  Ur.  Pusey. 
First,  his  piety  was  of  a  most  engaging  kind.  As  an 
undergraduate,  I  felt  that  he  cared  for  that  which  was 
above  all  controversial  considerations.  He  cared  for 
one's  soul.  There  were,  no  doubt,  other  tutors  in  the 
Oxford  of  that  day  who  cared  for  the  souls  of  under- 
graduates. But  they  did  not  show  it  as  Dr.  Pusey  did. 
The  first  time  I  ever  spoke  to  Dr.  Pusey,  I  felt  no  doubt 
that  that  which  was  to  me  priceless,  beyond  all  con- 
siderations of  honours  in  the  schools — the  perfection  of 
my  spiritual  life— was  to  him  the  chief  concern.  And  I 
never  lost  that  feeling  with  Dr.  Pusey.  He  was,  I  said 
to  myself,  a  man  of  prayer.  All  his  sermons  showed  that 
there  was  an  intensity  of  the  '  spiritual '  about  him  which 
gave  a  peculiar  charm  to  his  voice  ;  his  whole  manner 
was  most  winning.  As  an  undergraduate,  I  could  not 
imagine  Dr.  Pusey  to  be  wrong  in  anything.  And  yet 
I  was  brought  up  to  consider  that  there  were  some  things 
in  which  he  ought  not  to  be  followed.  As  I  was  not 
told  distinctly  what  these  were,  I  felt  sure  that  they  were 
not  amongst  those  things  in  which  I  did  follow  him.  He 
taught  me  to  fast,  and  to  use  an  imitation,  however 
feeble,  of  that  most  sublime  of  Catholic  devotions  (after 
the  Holy  Mass),  viz.  the  Rosary.     He  taught  me  to 

'  Letter  to  Dr.  Pusey  on  occasion  of  liis  Eirenicon,  p.  2. 


Pusey  and  Laud 


confess  my  sins,  and  to  tr)-  to  grow  in  grace.  He  led  me 
to  daily  Communion  during  the  last  two  years  of  my 
undergraduate  life. 

This,  then,  was,  I  believe,  the  first  cause  of  Dr. 
Pusey's  extraordinary  influence  over  us,  as  undergra- 
duates, viz  his  piety. 

The  second  source  of  his  influence  was,  I  think,  his 
chivalr}-.  He  had  been  in  the  wars.  He  had  been 
accused  of  nameless  iniquities.  I  remember  Mr. 
Harriot's  old  nurse,  who  saw  Dr.  Pusey  every  day 
during  Mr.  M.'s  long  illness,  whilst  cherishing  a  great 
love  for  the  Doctor,  joining  in  the  chorus  of  condemna- 
tion. I  had  read  his  account  of  Scupoli,  and  knew  that 
that  most  beautiful  book  of  instruction  in  the  spiritual 
life  was  written  when  Scupoli  was  under  a  false  accusation. 
And  few  men  had  been  more  thoroughly  abused  than 
Dr.  Pusey.  But  he  was  indifferent  to  it  all.  He  went 
on  teaching  just  the  same.  He  still  defended  and  assisted 
those  good  ladies  who  had  been  all  but  universally  con- 
demned by  bishops  and  clerg}-.  He  still  heard  confes- 
sions, though  his  bishop  so  strongly  disapproved  of 
it,  and  his  archbishop  publicly  condemned  the  whole 
system  of  confession.  We  felt  confidence  in  a  man  who 
could  weather  a  storm  like  that.  I  remember,  as  an 
undergraduate,  taking  up  a  pamphlet  by  a  clergy  man  who 
had,  as  we  called  it,  seceded  to  Rome,  in  which  he  laid 
great  stress  on  the  fact  that  for  so  many  centuries  the 
English  clergy  had  been  unconscious  of  their  priesthood, 
from  which  he  argued  that  they  could  not  possess  it.  I 
turned  in  thought  to  Dr.  Pusey  :  he,  at  any  rate,  believed 
in  his  priesthood,  and  was  worth  a  thousand,  or  ten 
thousand,  who  denied  it.  It  was  clear  to  me  that  the 
sacerdotal  theory  was  the  true  one,  and  it  was  enough 
for  me  that  such  a  man  as  Dr.  Pusey  believed  in  his  own 
priesthood.     But  besides  his  piety  and  chivalry,  Dr. 


Puscy  and  Laud 


185 


Pusey's  industry  was  prodigious.  I  attended  his  lectures 
on  Isaiah  and  the  Minor  Prophets  and  simply  marvelled 
at  his  learning.  Tales  were  rife  all  over  Oxford,  as  to 
the  number  of  hours  that  he  could  devote  to  study. 
Having  made  his  acquaintance  as  an  undergraduate,  I  had 
the  privilege  of  being  in  constant  correspondence  with 
him  for  the  next  thirteen  years.  But  the  time  came 
when  my  confidence  in  his  guidance  in  one  region  of 
thought  received  a  rude  shock.  Circumstances  led  me 
to  go  more  carefully  into  the  case  of  Apiarius  in  the 
fifth  century,  and  the  relation  of  the  African  Church  to 
the  Bishop  of  Rome.  And  I  felt  convinced  that  on  that 
point  Dr.  Pusey  was  mistaken.  Yet  it  was  one  of  his 
main  points.  It  has  always  been  one  of  the  main  stays 
of  the  Anglican  side  of  the  great  controversy  with  Rome.' 
The  so-called  independence  of  the  African  Church  is 
invariably  supposed  to  cover  the  case  of  the  English 
Church  in  her  attitude  of  independence  towards  Rome. 
I  was  possessed  with  that  fiction  of  fictions,  that  the 
English  Church  in  pre-Reformation  times  was  indepen- 
dent in  spirit,  sufficiently  to  cover  the  case  of  actual 
severance.  For  that,  of  course,  is  the  point.  A  youth 
may  be  of  a  peculiarly  independent  character,  and  object 
to  consulting  his  father  on  some  particular  point  in  his 
conduct,  without  distantly  dreaming  of  being  indepen- 
dent in  the  essentials  of  his  life.  The  two  things  are 
entirely  different,  so  that  the  one  may  argue  mere  inde- 
pendence of  character,  whilst  the  other  may  amount  to 
mortal  sin.  But  I  thought  the  independence  of  the 
English  Church  in  pre-Reformation  times  was  of  such  a 
nature  that  the  severance  in  the  time  of  Henry  VIII. 
was  merely  its  logical  development,  and  not  a  new  de- 
parture. And  I  thought  that  the  case  of  the  African 
Church  covered  the  separation  of  England,  trusting  to 
'  See  next  chapter. 


Puscy  and  Laud 


Dr.  Pusey's  presentment  of  the  case.  But  at  length  I 
had  the  same  documents  before  me  as  he  had.  It  was 
no  question  of  mere  learning,  but  of  forming  a  judgment 
on  the  same  documents.  And  it  seemed  to  me  that 
the  judgment  formed  by  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  on 
this  question  of  S.  Augustine  and  his  relations  with  Rome, 
was  right,  and  Dr.  Pusey  was  wrong.  But  then  '  he  was 
'so  learned  and  so  good ' ;  it  seemed  rash  to  differ  from 
so  great  a  man  :  and  if  one  could  not  depend  on  Dr. 
Pusey,  on  whom  could  one  depend  ? 

Some  years  later  my  confidence  in  Dr.  Pusey  received 
a  severer  shock.  I  came  across  a  letter  of  Mr.  Allies  to 
Dr.  Pusey,  which  dealt  with  the  following  statement.  Dr. 
Pusey  says,  in  his  '  Eirenicon,'  concerning  Mr.  Allies  :  '  I 
'  would  say  that  his  second  work,  after  that,  in  despair  of 
'  the  English  Church  on  the  Gorham  judgment,  he  left 
'the  Church  of  England,  is  no  real  answer  to  this,  which 
'  he  wrote,  not  as  a  partisan,  but  as  the  fruit  of  investiga- 
'  tions  as  to  whose  issue  he  was  indifferent.'  I  had  always 
absolved  myself  from  reading  Mr.  Allies's  second  book, 
relying  on  this  statement  of  Dr.  Pusey's.  His  first  book 
seemed  to  me  quite  the  ablest  defence  ever  written  on 
behalf  of  the  Church  of  England,  and  real  fairness  would 
naturally  have  led  one  to  read  his  reply.  But  Dr.  Pusey, 
I  said  to  myself,  knew  him  well.  And  he  had  decided 
that  Mr.  Allies  wrote  his  first  book  with  a  mind  open  and 
impartial,  and  his  second  in  the  spirit  of  a  partisan.  And 
I  was  content  to  take  Dr.  Pusey's  condemnation  of  Mr. 
Allies  as  well-grounded.  What  was  my  horror  on  suddenly 
discovering  that  (as  I  have  since  discovered  in  so  many 
cases)  Dr.  Pusey  was  mistaken  in  his  facts  !  Mr.  Allies 
wrote  both  books  as  a  member  of  the  Church  of  England, 
and  from  a  comfortable  rectory.  The  first  enabled  him 
to  keep  his  rectory,  and  the  second  obliged  him  to  quit 
it,  and  begin  life  over  again.    My  heart  sank  within  me. 


Ptisey  and  Laud 


If  Dr.  Pusey  could  not  deal  fairly  with  a  living  man,  how 
was  one  to  trust  him  in  regard  to  the  Fathers  of  the  first 
few  centuries  ?  If  he  could  so  misrepresent  one  whom 
he  had  known  so  well,  how  could  one  trust  him  in  regard 
to  the  saints  of  old  ?  I  had  already  read  enough  of  the 
Fathers  to  feel  that  there  was  another  side  to  the  question. 
But  it  is  hard  to  human  nature  to  part  with  a  long-trusted 
guide,  and  it  took  me  years.  My  dependence  on  him 
was  finally  destroyed  when  I  discovered  the  real  state  of 
things  in  regard  to  Archbishop  Chichele,  about  whom 
he  made  such  extraordinary  statements  a  propos  of 
Archbishop  Parker's  consecration.  He  says  in  the 
'Eirenicon'  (p.  232)  that  the  form  used  at  the  conse- 
cration of  Archbishop  Parker,  which  is  generally  con- 
'  sidered  inadequate,  was  carefully  framed  on  the  old 
'  form  used  in  the  consecration  of  Archbishop  Chichele 
'  a  century  before  (as  I  found  by  collation  of  the  registers 
'  in  the  archiepiscopal  library  at  Lambeth,  now  many 
'  years  ago).' 

Now,  considering  the  importance  of  the  subject,  to  an 
English  Churchman,  of  Archbishop  Parker's  consecration 
— all  his  sacraments  depending  upon  it — and  considering 
that  the  '  Eirenicon '  is  addressed  to  members  of  the 
Church  of  Rome  in  the  most  public  way,  one  would 
expect  the  greatest  care  in  the  treatment  of  it.  And  this 
passage  gives  the  impression  of  learning  and  care  on  the 
part  of  the  Doctor.  So  he  continues  :  '  The  form  used 
'  in  Chichele's  time  I  could  not  trace  further  back.  Its 
'  use  was  exceptional,  having  been  resorted  to  at  a  time 
'  when  the  English  Church  did  not  acknowledge  either  of 
'  the  claimants  to  the  papacy.'  All  this  looks  like  real 
learning.  And  then  he  adds,  in  his  usual  telling  style  : 
'  It  was  of  the  providence  of  God  that  they  had  that 
'precedent  to  fall  back  upon.'  And  then  the  corollary  : 
'  But  the  selection  of  this  one  precedent  .  .  .  shows 


i88 


Piiscy  and  Laud 


'  how  careful  Parker  and  his  consecrators  were  to  follow 
'  the  ancient  precedents.' 

AVe  know  from  State  documents  that,  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  the  consecrators  left  it  in  the  hands  of  Elizabeth 
and  Lord  Burleigh  whether  they  would  have  any  arch- 
bishop at  all.  But  what  are  we  to  think  of  this  proof  of 
their  care  ?  Mr.  Bailey,  as  Canon  Estcourt  points  out, 
'  On  the  speaks  of  this  as  '  a  very  important  fact.'  And  Mr.  Bailey's 
of'Ang'i'k-an    book  on  Anglican  orders  was  considered  one  of  the  best 

Ordination,'  i      i  i 

p.  ii6.        we  had.' 

'  A  very  important  fact  ! '  But  Chichele  was  not 
consecrated  archbishop  at  all.  Ke  was  consecrated 
Bishop  of  S.  David's,  and  not  in  England.  He  was 
only  elected  archbishop,  and  transferred  to  Canterbury. 

He  was  consecrated  by  the  Pope  at  Siena !  What 
does  it  all  mean  ?  Did  they  use  the  form  at  Archbishop 
Parker's  consecration  which  was  used  at  Bishop  Chichele's 
installation  to  Canterbury  ? 

Canon  Estcourt  well  remarks  that  '  it  is  impossible  to 
'  see  .  .  .  what  meaning  can  be  attached  to  Dr.  Pusey's 
'statement.' 

But  what  are  we  to  think  of  Dr.  Pusey's  accuracy  on 
such  matters?  Wa?  not  our  dependence  on  him  in  these 
questions  misplaced  ?  I  believe  no  one  would  more  wish 
to  say  this  than  himself  in  that  other  world  where  our 
controversies  are  at  an  end. 

But,  such  is  the  authority  which  he  still  wields,  that 
this  very  passage  from  the  '  Eirenicon,'  with  its  extra- 
ordinary blunder,  is  referred  to  in  Mr.  Gore's  '  Roman 
'  Catholic  Claims'  in  its  original  form  (p.  74)  with  approval. 
And  in  the  enlarged  form  of  that  book  a  reference  is 
made  to  the  same  passage,  with  the  suggestion  of  a 
'  possible  '  alternative,  viz.  that  they  borrowed  from  the 

'  Since  writing  the  above,  I  have  learnt  that  Mr.  Bailey  has 
been  received  into  the  (Roman)  Catholic  Church, 


Piiscy  and  Laud 


Exeter  pontifical.  Here  it  is  still  '  Archbishop  Chichele's 
consecration.'  But  in  the  second  edition  Mr.  Gore  seems 
to  have  discovered  the  mistake,  as  the  word  '  archbishop  ' 
is  dropped,  and  it  is  '  Chichele's  consecration  ' — still,  of 
course,  erroneous.  And  we  are  referred  to  the  '  "  Eireni- 
'con,"  p.  232,  as  corrected  by  Hutton,  "Anglican  Ministry," 
'p.  324,'  which  should  be  'as  refuted'  by  Hutton.  The 
reference  ought,  of  course,  to  have  been  boldly  with- 
drawn, for  '  as  corrected  by  Hutton  '  it  is  shown  to  be  a 
misstatement,  and,  therefore,  does  not  bear  out  Mr.  Gore's 
supposition. 

Mr.  Gore  has  depended  on  Dr.  Pusey,  and  Dr. 
Pusey  has  proved,  in  this  important  matter,  a  broken 
reed.  It  has  certamly  pierced  his  reputation.  '  Dr. 
'  Pusey's  statement,  as  corrected  by  Hutton,'  given  as  a 
corroboration  on  the  question  connected  with  Anglican 
orders,  turns  out  to  be  a  tissue  of  misstatements  crammed 
into  half  a  page.  Surely  it  would  have  been  better  to 
have  owned  at  once  that  Dr.  Pusey  was  mistaken. 

But  this  was  precisely  what  it  was  so  hard  to  induce 
Dr.  Pusey  himself  to  do.  When  Dr.  Pusey  kept  to 
positive  teaching  in  harmony  with  the  Catholic  Church, 
his  immense  industry  served  him  well.  He  could  even 
then  occasionally  fall  into  error,  as  in  his  unbalanced 
statements  on  post-baptismal  sin,  which  he  in  a  measure 
retracted  in  his  sermon  on  absolution.  But  he  cannot 
be  accused  of  inaccuracy,  downright  mistakes,  in  that 
part  of  his  teaching.  His  book  on  Daniel  is  a  marvel  of 
exegetical  and  controversial  power.  His  note  (to  take 
a  single  instance)  on  the  '  Desire  of  all  Nations '  in  his 
Commentary  on  the  Minor  Prophets  would  be  admitted 
by  all  to  be  an  admirable  instance  of  fulness,  and  terse- 
ness, and  scholarly  exactness. 

But  directly  we  turn  to  his  controversial  writings 
against  Rome,  his  hand  seems  to  lose  its  cunning.  His 


190 


Piisey  and  Laud 


life,  too,  lost  its  aroma  to  many  of  us.  Whilst  defending 
Catholic  truth  he  was  the  '  despised  of  men  ; '  he  was  as- 
sailed by  every  kind  of  calumny  :  he  had,  in  a  word,  the 
surest  sign  of  acceptance  in  an  outward  correspondence 
to  his  Master — the  world  hated  him,  and  vented  its  hate 
in  the  most  ludicrous  lies.  But  when  he  began  to  attack 
Rome,  the  world  applauded.  Everything  was  changed. 
His  learning  betrayed  him  ;  his  logic  forsook  him  ;  his 
persistent  industry  took  the  form  of  what  I  can  only  call 
a  determined  adherence  to  his  own  oj)inion.  Probably 
no  book  has  appeared  in  the  present  century  bearing  the 
marks  of  such  prodigious  energy  combined  with  such  a 
list  of  misinterpretations,  and  even  misquotations,  as  Dr. 
Pusey's  '  Eirenicon.'  The  misquotations  are  not  on  miner 
points,  nor  some  of  them  such  that  there  can  be  two 
sides  to  the  question.  And  they  were  pointed  out  to  Dr. 
Pusey.  They  were  publicly  exposed,  so  far  as  they  could 
be  (for  English  Churchmen  are  probably  the  only  body 
of  men  in  this  country  who  do  not  read  both  sides  of  the 
question  that  most  affects  them),  and  Dr.  Pusey  advertised 
a  reply.  He  wrote  to  the  author  of  the  work,  in  which 
his  inaccuracies  were  exposed,  one  sentence  :  '  Have 
patience  with  me  and  I  will  pay  thee  all'  But  years 
elapsed  and  no  answer  came.  Other  controversial  books 
against  Rome  appeared,  but  the  one  book  which  alone 
could  clear  Dr.  Pusey's  reputation  never  saw  the  light. 
The  accusations  were  made  in  1866.  A  summary  of  them 
will  be  found  in  the  Preface  to  Harper's  '  Peace  through 
'  the  Truth,'  2nd  series  (Burns  and  Gates,  1874). 

They,  are  seventeen  in  number,  and  include  such 
counts  as  these.  Dr.  Pusey  has  stated,  in  his  attack  on 
Transubstantiation,  that  the  remaining  of  the  substance 
of  the  elements  after  consecration  was  an  open  question 
in  the  Church  till  the  beginning  of  the  15th  century,  and 
quotes,  among  others,  Biel,  Melchior  Canus,  Alphonso  de 


Piisey  a?id  Laud 


191 


Castro,  Hurtado,  S.  J.,  Vasquez,  S.  J.,  Suarez,  S.  J.,  in  proof 
of  his  proi)osition.  Father  Harper  ('Peace  through  the 
'  Truth,'  1st  series)  has  shown  that  none  of  those  writers 
countenances  Dr.  Pusey's  assertion. 

Dr.  Pusey  has  quoted  Durandus,  Scotus,  and  BassoHs 
on  the  same  question,  in  his  favour  ;  but  he  has  quoted 
the  opinions  they  refuted,  as  their  own.  They  openly 
contradict  Dr.  Pusey's  proposition. 

Dr.  Pusey  quotes  S.  Thomas  Aquinas  in  favour  of  his 
opinion,  but  S.  Thomas  Aquinas  contradicts  Dr.  Pusey. 

Dr.  Pusey,  in  quoting  Suarez  in  his  favour,  translates 
'  Haec  fuitantiqua  sententia  ' '  this  was //^e  ancient  opinion  ' 
whereas  the  context  shows  that  Suarez  meant,  '  this  was 
an  ancient  opinion  '  related  by  Bonaventure.  On  turning 
to  S.  Bonaventure  we  find  that  he  expressly  says  it  was 
an  opinion  of  a  few  ('  aliquorum ')  and  that  they  were 
'  moderns  '  in  the  time  of  the  Master  of  the  Sentences. 
So  that  Suarez  does  not  mean  in  the  least  what  Dr.  Pusey 
understands  him  to  say. 

Dr.  Pusey  quotes  a  number  of  Fathers  in  support  of 
his  theory  that  when  our  Lord  spoke  of  the  '  fruit  of  the 
'vine'  in  the  Cenacle,  He  was  speaking  of  the  conse- 
crated chalice.  They  have  all  been  shown  to  be  clearly 
against  him,  except  one,  who  seems  to  favour  Dr.  Pusey's 
interpretation,  which  is  directed  against  the  doctrine  of 
Transubstantiation.  But  S.  Hilary  is  only  made  to  agree 
by  translating  his  words  '  that  fruit  of  the  vine,'  instead  of 
(as  they  should  be  translated)  'the  fruit  of  that  vine.' 

Dr.  Pusey's  translation  of  S.  Clement's  at/za  t»}s 
a/xTreAou '  blood  of  the  grape,'  which  helps  to  support  his 
view,  is  again,  a  mistranslation. 

These  are  but  samples  of  the  inaccuracies  of  the 
'  Eirenicon.'  How  different  from  his  other  writings  ! 
What  a  fatality  seems  to  attend  his  attacks  on  the  points 
in  which  he  differed  from  Rome  ! 


192 


Pusey  and  Land 


By  enormous  industry  Dr.  Pusey  helped  to  win  back 
some  of  the  truth,  which  had  been  trampled  under  foot  in 
the  teaching  of  the  Establishment  for  centuries.  He  went 
through  the  fire  of  lying  assaults,  and  the  chill  waters  of 
Episcopal  coldness  and  misapprehension,  in  assisting  to 
bring  his  countrymen  back  from  some  of  the  heresies  in 
which  they  had  been  involved  by  the  terrible  catastrophe 
of  the  i6th  century. 

Meanwhile  every  little  Catholic  child  knew,  from  the 
dawn  of  reason,  the  truths  which  he  thus  laboriously  and 
meritoriously  regained. 

But  the  moment  he  began  to  attack  the  Holy  See,  he 
fell  into  mistake,  misquotation,  and  misunderstanding. 
There  are  three  points  on  which  Dr.  Pusey  has  certainly 
left  his  mark  on  a  whole  generation  of  devout  Christians. 
The  amount  of  dependence  placed  on  him  has  led  to  the 
wide  adoption  of  (i)  his  theory  of  the  unity  of  the  Church 
(2)  his  idea  of  a  Papal  contradiction,  (3)  his  opposition  to 
the  doctrine  of  the  Immaculate  Conception.  The  argu- 
ments on  which  he  has  relied  to  support  these  can  be 
shown  to  be  full  of  misstatements. 

(i)  His  theory  of  unity. 

There  were  few  things  on  which  he  laid  more  stress  to- 
wards the  end  of  his  life  than  the  fact,  as  he  conceived 
it  to  be,  that  the  Catholic  and  Roman  doctrine  rested  on 
an  'a  priori'  assumption.  He  contended  that  it  was  a 
sample  of  what  the  poet  describes  when  he  speaks  of  some 
who 

'  nobly  take  the  high/r/w/  road. 
And  reason  downward,  till  they  doubt  of  God.' 

So,  he  would  say,  a  Roman  Catholic  begins  by  saying 
'  A  visible  body  must  have  a  visible  head.'  '  Why  must  ?  ' 
he  would  reply.    '  Is  it  not  an  assumption  ? ' 

But,  of  course,  the  Catholic  argument  is,  that  unless 


Ptisey  and  Laud 


193 


reasons  can  be  shown  to  the  contrary,  the  natural  sup- 
position is  that,  when  the  body  is  spoken  of,  it  includes 
a  head  in  the  same  order  of  life  ;  if  it  is  a  visible  body, 
needs  must  be,  unless  cause  can  be  shown  why  it  should 
not,  that  it  will  have  a  visible  head.  But  Dr.  Pusey  went 
on  still  farther,  and  maintained  :  not  only  is  there  no 
visible  head  to  the  visible  body,  but  that  the  unity  on 
which  he  saw  that  the  Fathers  uno  ore  lay  such  stress, 
does  not  even  require  visible  intercommunion.  This,  he 
contends,  would  be  a  happiness  to  the  Church,  but  is  not 
a  necessity  of  its  life.  The  Catholic  holds  that  it  is. 
Even  in  the  time  of  the  anti-popes,  people  did  not  hold 
that  all  was  in  such  confusion  that  there  was  no  visible 
head  ;  but  they  held  that  there  must  be  a  visible  head, 
and  therefore  either  this  or  that  claimant  was  the  rightful 
occupant  of  the  See,  and  they  ranged  themselves  under 
one  or  other,  as  it  seemed  to  each  most  proper.  The 
misery  and  confusion  of  the  time  did  not  in  the  least 
produce  the  theory  that  the  visible  head  was  no  part  of 
the  Divine  mstitution.  Such  a  notion  never  entered  the 
mind  of  the  Saints  of  that  troubled  time.  They  held 
what  S.  Cyprian  held.  The  theory  of  a  hidden  unity  being 
sufficient,  consisting  in  the  participation  of  similar  sacra- 
ments, whilst  there  was  no  outward  communion,  was 
expressly  repudiated  by  S.  Cyprian.  S.  Cyprian  is  the 
Father  to  whom  Dr.  Pusey  turned  with  the  greatest 
enthusiasm.  He  had,  unfortunately,  his  own  way  of 
interpreting  one  or  two  passages,  a  mode  unheard  of 
until  the  exigencies  of  Anglican  controversy  struck  it  out ; 
and  he  comforted  himself  in  the  belief  that  the  English 
Church  was  taking  up  a  similar  line  to  that  adopted  by 
S.  Cyprian  at  the  time  when  he  was  teaching  heterodoxy 
on  the  subject  of  Baptism  administered  by  heretics.  But 
S.  Cyprian  plainly  disclaims  the  theory  of  unity,  adopted 
by  Dr.  Pusey,  in  his  '  Eirenicon,'  and  by  Canon  Carter  in 

o 


194 


Pusey  and  Laud 


a  well-known  sermon  on  Unity.  The  latter  adduces  the 
history  of  the  ten  tribes  of  Israel,  favoured  by  Prophets 
in  their  isolation  from  the  centre  of  unity,  and  not,  so  he 
holds,  called  upon  to  return  to  that  centre.  Their  case 
is  sufficient  to  cover  that  of  the  English  Church,  who  (it 
is  maintained),  in  her  isolation  and  visible  disunion,  has 
had  her  prophets.  So  that  there  may  be,  according  to 
these  wTiters,  a  sufficient  underlying  unity  preserved, 
although  there  is  no  visible  union.  Now,  S.  Cyprian 
happens  to  deal  with  precisely  this  question  in  reference 
to  the  same  history.  He  expressly  warns  us  against 
quoting  the  case  of  the  ten  tribes  as  an  instance  of  what 
Oxford        might  happen  7£/zV/^z«  the  Church.  His  words  are  :' When 

translation  of 

s.  Cyprian's  '  the  twclvc  tribcs  of  Israel  were  torn  asunder,  the  Prophet 
p.  136  '  '  Ahijah  rent  his  garment.  But  because  Chris fs people  can- 
'  not  be  refit,  His  coat,  woven  and  conjoined  throughout, 
'  was  not  divided  by  those  it  fell  to.  Individual,  conjoined, 
'  co-entwined,  it  shows  the  coherent  concord  of  our  people, 
'  who  put  on  Christ.  In  the  sacrament  and  sign  of  His 
'garment,  He  has  declared  the  unity  of  His  Church.'  S. 
Cyprian  thus  contrasts  the  twelve  tribes  with  the  Church. 
Ten  of  the  twelve  tribes  could  be  severed  from  the  rest, 
and  remain  part  of  Israel  ;  not  so  with  the  Church.  The 
one  garment,  visibly  one,  is  the  symbol  of  the  Church  ; 
not  the  children  of  Israel,  divided  into  two.  Dr.  Pusey, 
however,  has  another  simile.  He  likens  the  various 
'  Churches,' as  he  calls  them,  to  the  streams  that  went 
out  of  Paradise.  'They  are,'  he  says,  'all  one,  though 
'  parted.'  S.  Augustine  considers  them  all  out  of  the 
Church,  and  in  schism,  as  soon  as  they  leave  Paradise, 
and  denies  that  they  can  have  the  blessedness  of  the  life 
within.  I  remember,  the  first  time  (some  years  ago)  I  dis- 
covered that  S.  Augustine  used  this  simile  to  establish 
exactly  the  contrary  to  what  Dr.  Pusey  does,  shutting  the 
book  as  though  it  were  some  bad  dream.  Dr.  Pusey, 
evidently,  had  different  ideas  of  unity  from  S.  Augustine. 


Pusey  and  Laud 


195 


Mr.  Gore,  in  the  use  of  this  simile,  follows  Dr.  Pusey, 
not  S.  Augustine. 

The  gist  of  Dr.  Pusey's  theory  of  unity  is  contained 
in  his  assertion  that  the  formal  unity  of  the  Church  is 
'  not  an  unity  of  will,  but  an  unity  of  nature  '  ('Eirenicon,' 
p.  51),  and  that  'the  first  and  very  chiefest  character  of 
'  unity  is  not  anything  which  comes  forth  from  us.  It  is 
'  infused  into  us  by  God '  (p.  52). 

By  means  of  this  definition.  Dr.  Pusey  endeavours  to 
exculpate  the  Church  of  England  from  the  charge  of  such 
isolation  from  the  Catholic  world  as  would  be  fatal  to 
her  claim  to  be  part  of  the  one  Holy  Catholic  Church. 

For  many  years  I  held  this  theory  myself.  It  so 
exactly  suited  our  case  in  the  English  Church.  The 
Church,  we  knew,  must  be  one  ;  the  Anglican  Church  is 
not  at  one  with  the  Roman:  therefore  a  unity,  which  does 
not  involve  concord,  is  sufficient. 

I  did  not  see  what  is  now,  to  me,  as  clear  as  day,  that 
a  unity  of  nature  cannot  constitute  the  unity  of  any  society 
of  men.  A  unity  of  nature,  i.e.  of  participation  in  the 
nature  of  Adam,  does  not  constitute  the  unity  of  human 
society.  It  is  its  material,  its  preliminary,  not  social 
unity  itself  And  so  a  unity  of  nature,  in  the  supernatural 
order — a  common  participation  in  the  nature  of  the 
second  Adam — is  only  the  prerequisite,  the  material  of 
the  Church's  unity,  and  not  that  unity  itself.  A  society  ^p^glJr^'''* 
with  no  intercommunion  between  the  members  is  a  con-  '"j^. 

Truth,  vol.1. 

tradiction  in  terms,  and,  as  a  rule,  two  names  soon  appear,  pp-  56-7'- 
As  a  society  it  has  disappeared,  and  only  the  units,  the 
potentialities  of  society,  remain.  '  We  are  all  one,  though 
'  we  hold  no  communion  with  one  another,  do  not  believe 
'  the  same  faith,  and  do  not  worship  together  ;'  such  is  the 
unity  which  Dr.  Pusey  boldly  asserts  to  be  an  adequate 
realisation  of  our  Lord's  prayer  'that  they  maybe  all  one' 
— adequate,  that  is,  for  what  is  essential,  though  missing 

o  2 


ig6 


Pusey  and  Laud 


the  perfect  fulfilment.  If  the  unity  of  the  Church  is  '  an 
'  unity  of  nature,  not  of  will,'  there  is  no  room  for  the  sin 
of  schism,  and  the  visibility  of  the  Church  will  be  com- 
patible with  visible  opposition,  visible  separation,  visible 
disunion  and  discord.  But  such  a  theory  as  this  is  not  that 
of  the  Fathers,  to  whom  Dr.  Pusey  refers.  We  have  seen 
that  it  is  distinctly  repudiated  by  S.  Cyprian,  in  his  treatise 
on  the  unity  of  the  Church.  It  is  distinctly  repudiated 
by  three  other  writers,  on  whom  Dr.  Pusey  rests  his 
case. 

Harper,  I.  Take,  for  instance,  S.  Cyril  of  Alexandria.  Speak- 

through  the  ing  of  the  prayer  of  our  Lord  for  the  unity  of  His  Church, 
pp™68^i.  he  says  :  '  He  supplicates  them  for  the  bond  of  unanimity 
In  joann.      <  and  Dcacc  which  may  conduct  the  faithful  together  to 

1.  xi.  c.  ii. 

'  an  unity  of  soul.'  And  again:  '  This  most  perfect  union 
'  must  be  imitated  by  the  union  of  the  faithful  in  one  mind 
'  and  in  one  soul.'  And  again  :  '  When  He  adds,  "  As  We 
'  "  are  one,"  He  is  evidently  not  bestowing  on  the  faithful  a 
'  change  of  nature,  but  proposing  what  is  his  by  nature,  as 
'  a  pattern  and  image  of  the  unity  of  will  in  us.'  The  unity 
of  the  Church,  therefore,  for  which  our  Lord  prayed,  must, 
according  to  S.  Cyril,  express  itself  in  union.  Churches, 
permanently  separated  from  each  other,  can  be  no  fulfil- 
ment of  this  intention  of  our  Lord's.  It  is  idle  to  call 
them  one  Church.  They  are  not  numerically  one.  The 
Church  may  hold  within  herself  for  a  while  those  who 
are  alienating  themselves  in  their  faith,  but  only  in  the 
hope  of  bringing  them  back  to  the  unity  of  the  faith. 
But  the  English  Establishment  does  not  stand  in  this 
relation  to  the  Church  in  communion  with  the  See  of 
S.  Peter.  She  has  accepted  a  position  of  permanent  cor- 
porate separation  ;  and  if  she  were  a  part  of  the  Church, 
the  Church's  note  of  unity  would  be  gone.  For  that  unity 
is  an  unity  of  will  as  ivell  as,  and  proceeding  from,  and 
witnessing  to,  an  unity  of  nature. 


Pusey  and  Laud 


197 


2.  S.  Hilary  speaks  of  the  unity  of  the  faithful  as  not 
owing  its  origin  to  unity  of  will.  He  is  dealing  with  the 
favourite  Arian  contention  that  the  unity  of  the  Father 
with  the  Son,  was  a  unity  of  will,  not  of  nature.  S. 
Hilary's  answer  is  practically  that  it  is  l^oth.  In  dealing 
with  the  Arian  argument,  it  was  important  to  lay  stress  on 
the  supernatural  principle  of  the  unity  of  the  faithful,  viz. 
the  infusion  of  a  new  nature,  or  union  with  the  second 
Adam.  He  does  not  say  that  the  unity  of  the  faithful 
is  'an  unity  of  nature,  not  of  will,'  but  an  unity  of  will 
based  on  an  unity  of  nature. 

But  in  another  passage  he  expressly  contradicts  Dr. 
Pusey's  theory  of  unity.    And  there  he  is  dealing  with 
the  subject  ex  professo,  which  he  was  not  in  the  above  Tract,  m 
passage.    He  says  :  '  But  because  the  body  of  the  Church 
'  is  one,  not  mixed  up  of  a  sort  of  confusion  of  bodies, 

*  which  are  united  in  an  undistinguishable  mass  and  form- 

*  less  heap,  but  by  unity  of  faith,  by  the  fellowship  of 
'  charity,  by  concord  of  act  and  will,  by  one  gift  of  the 
'  Sacrament  in  all,  we  are  all  one.' 

3.  S.  Chrysostom,  to  whom  again  Dr.  Pusey  refers, 
exhibits  a  totally  different  attitude  towards  the  subject 
of  the  Church's  unity  from  that  which  is  imphed  in 
Dr.  Pusey's  definition,  that  it  is  '  formally  '  '  an  union 
'  of  nature,  not  of  will.'  In  preaching  on  the  subject  of 
unity,  in  his  two  homilies  on  Ephesians  iv.,  he  speaks 
of  external  unity  as  the  natural  parent  and  guarantee  of 
unity  of  spirit,  although,  of  course,  the  opposite  is  also 
true.    He  says  the  Apostle,  after  saying  there  is  '  one 

'  body,'  'beautifully  adds  "and  one  spirit,"  showing  that  Homiiy 
'  from  the  one  body  there  will  be  one  spirit  ;  or  that  it  is 
'  possible  that  there  may  be  indeed  one  body,  and  yet  not 
'  one  spirit  ;  as,  for  instance,  if  any  member  of  it  should 

*  be  a  friend  of  heretics.' 

What  would  S.  Chrysostom  have  said  of  a  religious 


198  Pusey  and  Laud 

body  which  professedly  and  contentedly  '  comprehends  ' 
within  its  large  embrace,  and  admits  to  an  equality  of 
teaching  authority,  Dr.  Ryle  and  others  (witness  his 
address  on  the  '  Lord's  Supper '  in  its  fifth  edition),  and 
Dr.  King?  S.  Chrysostom  also,  in  the  same  Homily, 
speaking  of  the  gravity  of  the  sin  of  schism,  says,  '  How 
'  a  certain  holy  man  said  what  might  seem  to  be  a  bold 
'  thing.  Yet,  nevertheless,  he  spoke  it  out.  What,  then,  is 

*  this  ?    He  said  that  not  even  the  blood  of  martyrdom 

*  can  wash  out  this  sin.'  This  was  Cyprian,  whom  S. 
Augustine  praised  for  not  separating  himself  from  S. 
Stephen,  although  (wrongly)  considering  S.  Stephen  to 
be  defending  a  matter  of  discipline  which  was  injurious 
to  the  Church.  S.  Chr}'sostom  says  again  :  '  If,  on  the 
'  one  hand,  those  persons  have  doctrines  also  contrary 
'  to  ours,  then  on  that  account  further  it  is  not  right  to 

'  mix  with  them  ;  if,  on  the  other  hand,  they  hold  the, 
'  same  opinions,  the  reason  for  not  mixing  with  them  is 
'  greater  still.'  Such  was  his  conviction  of  the  heinous- 
ness  of  schism.  He  lays  it  down  further  on  :  'To  make 
'  a  schism  in  the  Church  is  no  less  an  evil  than  to  fall 
'  into  heresy.'  But  according  to  Dr.  Pusey's  theory  there 
cannot  be  such  a  thing  as  schism,  as  long  as  people 
'are  communicants,'  even  though  within  two  separated 
bodies.  They  would  still  have  '  an  unity  of  nature,  not 
'  of  will.' 

It  is  surely  then  nothing  less  than  bold  assertion  to 
define  the  Church's  note  of  unity  as  consisting  in  one- 
ness of  nature,  not  of  will. 

And  nothing  but  a  serious  perversion  of  Patristic 
texts  can  deduce  such  a  theory  from  even  the  Fathers  of 
the  first  few  centuries. 

According  to  them,  the  possession  of  a  common 
supernatural  life  was  to  be  evinced  to  the  world  by  a 
supernatural  unity  of  action.    The  nature  thus  raised  by 


Pusey  and  Laud 


199 


the  infusion  of  a  new  life  is  a  nature  of  which  a  free  will 
is  the  central  sovereign  power.  And  it  is  the  concordant 
action  of  multitudinous  free  wills,  which  bespeaks  the 
illapse  of  some  new  power,  enabling  them  thus  to  divest 
themselves  of  their  natural  discordance.  '  Christ  gave  us 
'  peace,'  says  S.  Cyprian  :  '  He  bade  us  be  of  one  heart 
'  and  one  mind  ;  He  commanded  that  the  covenant  of 
'  affection  and  charity  should  be  kept  unbroken  and  in- 
'  violate  ;  he  cannot  show  himself  a  martyr,  who  has  not 
'  kept  this  love  of  the  brotherhood.'  (De  Unitate.)  'He 
'  who  holds  not  this  unity  of  the  Church,  does  he  think 
'  that  he  holds  the  faith  ?  '  Of  what  unity  is  the  Saint 
speaking  ?  Of  a  unity  which  took  its  rise  from  a  single 
Apostle — 'a  commencement  is  made  from  unity,  that  the 
'  Church  may  be  set  forth  as  one.'  From  what  unity  was 
the  commencement  made  ?  '  The  Lord  saith  unto  Peter 
'  .  .  .  Thou  art  Cephas,  &c.  To  him  again,  after  his 
'  resurrection,  He  says,  Feed  My  sheep.  Upon  him  being 
'  one  He  builds  His  church.'  The  unity  of  the  Church 
consists,  therefore,  in  the  union  of  wills  under  one  head. 
It  is  something  to  be  held.  S.  Optatus,  writing  in  the 
fourth  century,  giving  no  argument  of  his  own,  but 
speaking  of  what  was  admitted  on  all  sides,  and  could 
thus  be  pressed  upon  his  opponent,  as  the  admittedly 
universal  teaching  of  that  century,  says  to  a  Donatist, 
'  You  cannot  deny  that  you  know  that  the  chair  of  Peter, 
'  first  of  all,  was  fixed  in  the  city  of  Rome,  in  which 
'  Peter,  the  head  of  all  the  Apostles,  sat ;  whence,  too, 
'  he  was  named  Cephas,  in  which  single  chair  unity  was 
'  to  be  observed  by  all.,  so  that  the  rest  of  the  Apostles 
'  should  not  each  maintain  a  chair  to  himself ;  and  that 
'  forthwith  he  should  be  a  schismatic  and  a  sinner  who 
'  against  that  singular  chair  set  up  another.'  (S.  Opt. 
contra  Parm.  bk.  iii.  c.  6.) 

Now  here  is  a  simple  issue.    S.  Optatus  and  Dr. 


200 


Pusey  and  Land 


Pusey  cannot  both  be  right  in  their  estimate  of  the 
Church's  teaching  concerning  her  note  of  unity  in  the 
fourth  century.  Yet  S.  Optatus  by  anticipation  provides 
a  plain  condemnation  of  the  action  of  Cranmer  and 
Parker,  and  consequently  of  the  present  position  of  the 
Anglican  establishment.  He  provides  also  a  contradic- 
tion of  Dr.  Pusey's  theor}-,  that  the  formal  unity  of  the 
Church  consists  in  'an  unity  of  nature,  not  of  will.'  It  is 
unity  under  one  head.  And  S.  Optatus  speaks  as  a 
witness  to  the  universal  teaching  of  the  Church  in  the 
fourth  centur}'. 

The  question  that  ought  to  be  asked,  is,  not  how  is  it 
that  Dr.  Pusey  could  remain  in  the  Church  of  England, 
but  how  is  it  that  he  could,  with  the  Fathers  of  the  fourth 
century  before  him,  enunciate  a  theory  which  is  contra- 
dicted by  S.  Cyprian,  S.  Cyril,  S.  Hilary,  S.  Chrj'sostom, 
and  S.  Optatus  ? 

The  Church  of  England  did,  in  the  sixteenth  century 
— first  through  fear  of  Henrj-  VHI.,  and  by  his  orders,  as  I 
have  shown  above,  and  next,  in  obedience  to  Elizabeth 
— what  all  these  Saints  must  have  condemned  as  contra- 
vening the  unity  of  the  Church.  So  soon  as,  in  reading 
the  Fathers,  Cardinal  Newman  and  others  came  to  see 
that  this  was  the  case,  they  returned  to  the  one  Church, 
the  Church  of  their  baptism,  their  real  mother.  Dr. 
Pusey  remained  behind.  One  cause  is  manifest.  He 
misread  those  Fathers.  Why  he  so  misread,  whether 
through  natural  confusedness  of  perception,  or  presump- 
tuous trust  in  self,  or  from  whatever  cause,  it  is  not  for 
us  to  say.  Suffice  it,  that  what  will  excuse  one  man,  will 
not  excuse  another,  and  that  a  child  will  often  go  right 
when  the  learned  go  astray. 

(2)  Next  let  us  take  Dr.  Pusefs  diffiadty  about  Papal 
contradictions.    Dr.  Pusey  says  :  — 

'  I  see  absolutely  no  way  in  which,  upon  the  forbidden 


Pusey  and  Land 


201 


'  degrees,  Alexander  VI.  can  be  reconciled  with  Gregory  I., 
'  or  how  the  acceptance  of  the  Sixth  General  Council, 
'which  anathematized  Honorius  as  a  heretic,  by  Leo  II., 
'and  his  own  individual  condemnation  of  him,  are  recon- 
'  cileable  with  the  doctrine  of  the  infallibility  of  both,  in 
'all  which  they  pronounce,  &c.' 

And  'these  are  but  specimens  of  the  inextricable 
'difficulties  in  which,  I  fear,  the  Roman  Church  would 
'  involve  itself  by  acceding  to  this  doctrine  of  the  Papal 
'  infallibility,  not  only  as  to  matters  of  faith  and  doctrine, 
'  but  as  to  matters  not  connected  therewith,  and  even  as 
'to  historical  facts.' 

In  this  last  sentence  Dr.  Pusey  has  described  a 
doctrine  which  no  one  holds. 

After  the  Vatican  decree.  Dr.  Pusey  ought  to  have 
seen  that  his  '  fears '  could  never  be  realised.  The 
teaching  of  the  Vatican  decree  is  as  follows  : — 

'  Faithfully  adhering  to  the  tradition  received  from 
'  the  beginning  of  the  Christian  faith  for  the  glory  of  God 
'  our  Saviour,  the  exaltation  of  the  Catholic  religion,  and 
'  the  salvation  of  Christian  people,  the  Sacred  Council 
'  approving,  we  teach  and  define  that  it  is  a  dogma 
'  divinely  revealed :  that  the  Roman  Pontiff,  when  he 
'  speaks  ex  cathedra — that  is,  when  in  discharge  of  the 
office  of  Pastor  and  Doctor  of  all  Christians — by  virtue 
'  of  his  supreme  Apostolic  authority,  he  defines  a  doctrine 
'  regarding  faith  or  morals  to  be  held  by  the  Universal 
'  Church,  by  the  divine  assistance  promised  to  him  in 
'  blessed  Peter,  is  possessed  of  that  infallibility  with  which 
'  the  Divine  Redeemer  willed  that  His  Church  should  be 
'  endowed  for  defining  doctrine  regarding  faith  or  morals  ; 
'and  that  therefore  such  definitions  of  the  Roman  Pontiff 
'  are  irreformable  of  themselves,  and  not  from  the  consent 
'  of  the  Church.' 

Against  this  decree.  Dr.  Pusey  has  forged  no  weapon 


202 


Pusey  and  Land 


that  can  be  said  to  have  inflicted  so  much  as  a  surface 
wound. 

The  censure  of  Honorius  has  been  dealt  with  in  a 
previous  chapter,  where  it  has  been  shown  that  the 
interesting  history  of  the  Sixth  General  Council  is  at 
least  fatal  to  the  Anglican  position.  It  is  consistent, 
also,  with  the  implicit  belief  of  the  Church  at  that  time 
in  the  immunity  of  the  Holy  See  from  error,  as  expressed 
in  the  Vatican  decree.  A\'ith  any  other  view  of  it,  we  have 
nothing  to  do. 

A  few  words  will  put  the  reader  in  possession  of  the 
facts  concerning  the  supposed  disagreement  between 
Gregory  I.  and  Alexander  ^T.  They  are  to  be  found  in 
full,  in  Harper's  '  Peace  through  the  Truth,'  2nd  series,  a 
book  which  is  unfortunately  so  exhaustive  and  conse- 
quently so  expensive,  that  it  is  to  be  feared  few  Anglicans 
make  its  acquaintance. 

Dr.  Pusey's  objection  concerning  Alexander  VI. 's 
dispensation  is  to  be  found  in  full  in  his  'Eirenicon,' 
PP-  305.  306  :— 

'  In  a  formal  answer  to  an  inquiry  of  S.  Augustine  of 
'  Canterbury,  "At  what  degree  of  consanguinity  may  the 
'  "faithful  marry,  and  may  marriage  be  contracted  with 
'"step-mothers  or  sisters-in-law?"  S.  Gregory  states: 
'  "  It  is  necessary  that,  in  order  to  marry  lawfully,  they 
'  "  should  be  in  the  third  or  fourth  degree,"  i.e.  second 
'  or  third  cousins  ;  and  prohibits,  on  ground  of  Divine 
'  law,  marriage  with  the  sister-in-law,  as  well  as  with  the 
'  mother-in-law.  This  was  directly  contradicted  by  the 
'  unhappy  Borgia  (Alexander  VI.)  who  gave  a  dispensa- 
'  tion  to  marry  a  sister-in-law,  and  an  aunt.' 

On  this  case  Dr.  Pusey  has  laid  the  greatest  emphasis. 
We  ask  then,  did  Alexander  VI.  issue  an  ex  cathedra 
pronouncement  !  If  not,  how  does  it  bear  on  the  question 
of  infallibility,  as  defined  by  the  Vatican  decree  ?    Did  he 


Pusey  and  Laud 


203 


even  issue  an  encyclical  ?  No.  Did  he  write  anything 
on  the  subject?  No.  He  gave  a  dispensation.  He 
signed  his  name.  Is  this  an  ex  cathedra  announcement  ? 
No  one  can  for  a  moment  make  such  an  assertion.  What 
if  Alexander  VI.,  by  this  act  of  his  (for  it  was  an  act, 
rather  than  a  decree),  exceeded  his  authority  ?  If  so, 
he  did  wrong.  And  for  the  i, 000th  time,  let  us  repeat 
it,  that  the  Vatican  decree  does  not  teach  the  impecca- 
bility of  the  Popes,  but  their  infallibility  in  an  ex  cathedra 
pronouncement.  There  need,  therefore,  be  no  difficulty 
whatsoever  about  reconciling  a  certain  dispensation  given 
by  one  Pope  with  a  decision  given  by  another.  The 
dispensation  might  have  been  wrongly  given,  and  yet  it 
would  not  affect  the  doctrine  of  Papal  infallibility,  as 
defined  at  the  Vatican  Council. 

But  in  point  of  fact,  there  is  no  contradiction,  in  the 
way  of  principle,  between  S.  Gregory's  prohibition,  and 
Alexander's  dispensation.  S.  Gregory  does  not  base  his 
prohibition  on  the  ground  of  Divine  law  in  the  sense  in 
which  Dr.  Pusey  imagines  him  to  have  done.  He  refers 
to  the  Levitical  law  ;  but  not  as  being  to  a  Christian  a 
Divine  law,  incapable  of  modification  or  dispensation. 
The  Church  did  not  simply  take  the  Levitical  prohibitions 
and  accept  them  as  authoritative  in  globo ;  she  used 
them,  but  gave  them  such  applications  as,  under  the 
guidance  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  she  saw  fit.  Hence  a 
reference  to  the  Levitical  code  on  the  part  of  S.  Gregory, 
would  not  mean  the  same  as  it  would  on  the  part  of 
Dr.  Pusey.  Dr.  Pusey's  whole  conception  of  the  relation 
of  Christians  to  that  code  differs  toto  c«lo  from  that  of 
S.  Gregory  and  the  Catholic  Church.  Consequently,  he 
first  misunderstands  S.  Gregory's  words,  and  then  finds 
a  contradiction  between  them  and  Alexander's  act.  It 
would  at  best  be  no  case  of  a  Papal  contradiction,  in 
the  sense  of  two  opposing  exercises  of  the  attribute  of 


204 


Pusey  and  Laud 


infallibility,  as  defined  at  the  Vatican  Council ;  but  in 
point  of  fact,  there  is  no  contradiction  at  all.  S.  Gregory 
acted  towards  the  English  in  one  way ;  Alexander 
towards  the  king  of  Portugal,  and  the  king  of  Sicily, 
in  another.  We  may  presume  that  the  cases  were 
different. 

And  why  does  Dr.  Pusey  single  out  Alexander,  when 
there  are  other  similar  cases  of  dispensation  ?  Was  it  that 
he  might  bring  as  much  prejudice  to  bear  on  the  case  as 
possible  ? 

Here,  then,  is  the  great  instance  which  Dr.  Pusey 
selects,  and  which  he  sees  '  absolutely  no  way '  of  re- 
conciling with  Papal  infallibility.  It  turns  out  to  be  no 
instance  of  an  ex  cathedra  pronouncement  at  all,  but  an 
act  of  Alexander's  ;  and  such  an  act  may  be  a  stretch  of 
authority  ;  but  it  turns  out  also  that  Dr.  Pusey  has  mis- 
interpreted this  expression  of  S.  Gregory's,  of  which  it 
is  supposed  to  be  a  contradiction. 

And  now  (3)  let  us  take  Dr.  Pusefs  treatment  of  t/ie 
doctrine  of  the  Immaculate  Conception. 

It  is  certainly  astonishing  that  any  Christian  should 
object  to  this  doctrine  in  itself  That  Mary  should  have 
been  born,  as  Eve  was,  without  original  sin,  m  view  of 
the  coming  redemption,  as  a  fruit  of  our  Lord's  Passion, 
which  was  soon  to  be — what  is  there  in  this  truth  that 
can  shock  the  mind  of  a  Christian  ?  We  are  not  shocked 
at  Eve  being  without  original  sin  ;  why  at  the  thought 
of  Mary  having  been  thus  conceived?  The  distance 
between  Mary  and  our  divine  Lord  is  still  infinite,  and 
His  place  in  the  economy  of  redemption  is  not  affected 
by  hers.  Her  Immaculate  Conception  does  not  make 
her  the  wellspring  of  grace  in  the  same  sense  that  we 
attribute  that  glory  to  His  Sacred  Humanity.  Her  con- 
ception did  not  make  her  what  He  became  by  His  Holy 
Incarnation — the  second  Adam.    She  is  not  the  '  neck ' 


Pusey  and  Laud 


205 


in  the  sense  in  which  Protestants  perversely  understand 
that  phrase.  She  is  our  advocate,  and  by  her  glorious 
intercession  we  are  assisted  beyond  all  thought  in  our 
path  to  Heaven.  But  this  no  more  trenches  on  His 
office  than  does  the  Intercession  of  the  Saints,  and  the 
manifold  ways  in  which  they  help  us  onwards.  She  is, 
indeed,  beyond  them  all — queen  of  the  very  angels — and 
we  would  infinitely  sooner  say  what  she  is  than  what 
she  is  not.  But  that  would  be  beyond  our  purpose  here, 
and  it  would  be  beyond  our  powers.  Her  conception 
without  the  stain  of  original  sin  was  not  her  right,  as  it 
was  His,  nor  of  nature,  as  with  Him,  but  of  grace.  She 
was  of  human  parents,  and  consequently  needed  the 
peculiar  grace  which  established  her  in  the  same  super- 
natural condition  as  was  our  mother  Eve.  He,  on  the 
contrary,  was  conceived  by  the  Holy  Ghost  and  born  of 
the  Virgin  Mary,  and  it  followed  that,  as  man,  He  was  of 
necessity  conceived  without  sin.  Her  conception  did 
not  involve  any  freedom  from  ordinary  conditions  on  the 
part  of  her  parents  ;  it  concerned  herself  alone.  Thus 
it  is  the  very  perversity  of  misrepresentation  to  imagine 
that  her  Immaculate  Conception  in  any  way  trenched  on 
His  inconceivable  prerogatives. 

But  was  it  not  unknown  to  the  early  ages  of  the 
Church's  life  ?  No,  not  unknown  simply,  unless  it  may 
be  said  that  the  Incarnation  itself  was  unknown  to  the 
three  first  centuries,  and  even  the  Being  of  God.  How 
many  saints  have  used  expressions  concerning  our  In- 
carnate Lord,  which  seemed  to  deny  one  or  other  aspect 
of  the  mystery  of  His  Incarnation,  and  which,  indeed, 
would  have  been  a  denial  of  the  truth  after  the  truth  had 
been  defined  !  How  often  they  used  language  which 
was  harmless  in  them,  but  being  misused  by  others  was 
laid  aside  !  What  strange  expressions  they  used  even  of 
the  Immensity  of  God  !  So  that,  as  Bishop  Bull  reminds 


2o6 


Puscy  and  Laud 


us,  they  might  even  be  convicted  of  having  erred  on  that 
fundamental  truth.  And  so,  although  in  those  early 
times  they  had  not  sifted  the  meaning  of  their  owti  ex- 
pressions nor  drawn  out  in  careful  phrase  their  inmost 
thoughts  concerning  her,  whom  they  called  the  Second 
Eve,  they  cannot  be  said  to  have  been  strangers  to  the 
truth  of  her  immaculate  conception. 

It  is  not  easy,  for  instance,  to  overrate  the  significance 

Hymn  27.  of  S.  Ephrem's  undisputed  testimony  (a.d.  379)  :  'Truly 
'  it  is  Thou  and  Thy  Mother  only  who  are  fair  altogether. 
'  For  in  Thee  there  is  no  stain,  and  in  Thy  Mother  no  spot. 
'  But  my  sons  \i  e.  the  members  of  the  Church  of  Edessa] 
'are  far  from  resembling  this  twofold  fairness.'  And  it 
is  certain  from  another  passage  that  S.  Ephrem  meant 
freedom  from  original,  not  merely  actual,  sin.    Again  : 

ii.  327a.  '  Two  were  made  simple,  innocent,  perfectly  like  each 
'  other — Mary  and  Eve — but  afterwards  one  became  the 
'cause  of  our  death,  the  other  of  our  life.' 

'Caiho'ic  _        Thus  '  S.  Ephrem  supplies  an  authentic  commentary 

^  iaion.iry,    ^  meaning  of  the  tradition  that  Mary  was  the 

'Second  Eve.  We  may  well  believe,  considering  how 
'  early  and  in  what  various  quarters  it  appears,  that  this 
'tradition  was  Apostolic.  And  just  at  the  time  when 
'the  doctrine  of  original  sin  becomes  prominent  in 
'  Christian  theology,  S.  Ephrem  assumes  without  doubt  or 
'  question  that  this  tradition  implies  Mary's  entire  exemp- 
'tion  from  the  cause,  and  supplies  us  with  reasonable 
'  grounds  for  believing  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Immaculate 
'  Conception  is  coeval  with  the  formation  of  the  Christian 
'  Church.' 

It  took  ages  to  settle  the  exact  equivalent  of  those 
high  thoughts  which  they  had  concerning  her,  so  that 
expressions  may  be  culled  from  the  language  of  nineteen 
centuries,  which  are  at  least  inexact — occasionally  con- 
trary to  the  truth.  It  was  only  when  at  length  theologians 


Puscy  a7id  Laud 


207 


were  in  danger  of  violent  difference  that  the  subject  was 
mercifully  closed,  and  by  the  Divine  assistance  the  in- 
fallible head  of  the  Church  decided  in  what  terms  the 
glorious  conception  of  our  Lady  should  henceforth  be 
enshrined,  and  unity  thus  be  secured. 

And  not  only  was  unity  thus  secured,  but  the  Church 
received  fresh  light  for  her  growing  work. 

There  is  a  writer  whom  the  present  Principal  of 
Pusey  House,  Oxford,  is  fond  of  quoting  in  his  book  on 
Roman  Catholic  claims — the  Pfere  Gratry.  At  the  end 
of  his  book  he  quotes  with  horror  a  prayer  from  the 
Vade-mecum  piorum  Sacerdotum,  of  which  Pere  Gratry 
nevertheless  gives  an  equivalent  from  S.  Ambrose,  con- 
cerning our  Lady.  But  he  finishes  his  book  with  a  long 
quotation  from  Pere  Gratry,  and  says  :  '  The  Abbe  Gratry 
'  is  right.'  Now  Pfere  Gratry  has  a  most  beautiful  book  on 
the  Immaculate  Conception,  in  which  he  looks  upon  the 
definition  of  the  dogma  as  a  glorious  contribution  to  our 
knowledge.  I  quote  it  both  because  Pere  Gratry  is  such 
an  authority  with  some  Anglicans,  and  because  it  is 
worth  noting  en  passant  that  those  dogmas,  like  the 
Immaculate  Conception  and  the  infallibility  of  the  Pope, 
which  it  is  generally  imagined  must  be  '  difficulties '  to 
Catholics,  are,  in  point  of  fact,  sources  of  special  repose 
and  light. 

Pere  Gratry  writes  :  '  O  Queen,  conceived  without 
'  sin,  pray  for  us  !  Pray  that  in  these  our  days  the 
'manifestation  of  this  mystery  \i.e.  of  her  Immaculate 
'  Conception]  may  become  a  shining  light  in  thy  Church. 
'  Pray  that  this  manifestation  may  be  such  a  progress  of 
'  Christian  wisdom  as  S.  Vincent  of  Lerins  speaks  of  in 
'  the  same  pages  which  warn  the  Christians  of  his  days 
'  against  dangerous  novelties.  "  Shall  there  never  be,"  he 
'  exclaims,  "  any  religious  progress  in  the  Church  of  Christ  ? 
'  "  Assuredly  there  shall  be  very  great  progress  ;  and  who 


208 


Pusey  and  Laud 


'  "  would  be  so  envious  of  man,  so  hostile  to  God,  as  to 
'  "wish  to  hinder  it?  Yes,  there  shall  be  progress  in  the 
'  "  faith,  but  no  change  in  the  faith;  let,  then,  understand- 
'  "  ing,  knowledge,  and  wisdom  grow  and  develop  from 
'  "age  to  age,  both  in  the  Universal  Church  and  in  the 
'  "  individual  soul.  In  the  course  of  time  the  old  doc- 
'  "  trines  of  the  heavenly  philosophy  must  be  more  and 
'  "  more  cultivated  and  explained  ;  they  can  never  be 
'  "changed,  maimed,  or  mutilated,  but  they  must  acquire 
'  "  more  clearness,  evidence,  and  precision,  while  they 
'  "preserve  the  fulness,  integrity,  and  propriety  that  they 
'  "  originally  possessed."  '  Pere  Gratry  then  quotes  from 
a  pious  author,  whose  name  he  does  not  give,  the  follow- 
ing words  :  '  There  are  many  reasons  why  God  willed 
'  that  the  mystery  of  Mary  should  dawn  by  degrees,  like 
'the  day.  .  .  .  One  reason,  as  theologians  commonly 
'  say,  is  this  :  because  the  Church  is  not  founded  on  our 
'  Lady,  but  upon  her  Son.  Therefore  it  was  convenient 
*  that  God  should  first  make  clear  the  truths  of  salvation, 
'  and  afterwards  in  the  superabundance  of  His  good- 
'  ness  should  clear  up  others,  which,  though  of  less 
'  consequence,  yet  raise  our  minds  to  know  Him  better 
'and  to  love  Him  more  ardently.'  And  then  this  wTiter, 
who  had  exhibited  powers  of  a  really  high  order  in 
mathematics  and  philosophy,  concludes  :  '  The  Immacu- 
'  late  Conception  of  the  Virgin  is  a  truth  so  deep,  so 
'fundamental,  and  so  central;  it  throws  so  strong  a  light 
'on  all  the  truths  of  faith,  and  even  on  all  the  truths 
'  of  philosophy,  that  its  fuller  manifestation  will  perhaps 
'  contribute  to  bring  about  that  intellectual  revolution  in 
'the  Christian  world  and  in  the  human  mind  which 
'  clear-sighted  souls  are  looking  for.' 

Such  was  the  enthusiasm  with  which  the  Christian 
philosopher  greeted  the  final  settlement  of  the  question 
as  to  the  relation  between  the  first  and  second  Eve. 


Pusey  and  Laud 


209 


Dr.  Pusey  dealt  with  this  dogma  with  great  earnest- 
ness. He  re-published  Turrecremata's  immense  book  on 
the  subject,  at  great  expense,  and  sent  it  (so  I  understood 
him  to  say)  to  nearly  all  the  bishops  of  the  Catholic 
Church. 

But  the  extraordinary  thing  is,  that  in  dealing  with 
this  truth,  that  Mary  was  endowed  with  original  justice 
at  the  moment  of  her  conception,  in  view  of  the  merits 
of  the  coming  Redeemer,  Dr.  Pusey  will  have  it  that  the 
definition  leaves  the  way  open  for  belief  in  what  is  called 
the  'active'  conception,  which  he  defines  incorrectly. 

His  whole  treatment  of  the  subject  led  Cardinal 
Newman  to  say  :  '  It  is,  to  me,  a  strange  phenomenon  Letter  to 
'that  so  many  learned  and  devout  men  stumble  at  this 
'  doctrine  '  (he  is  speaking  of  Anglican  divines),  '  and  I 

*  can  only  account  for  it  by  supposing  that  in  matter  of 
'  fact  they  do  not  know  what  we  mean  by  the  Immaculate 
'  Conception  ;  and  your  volume  (may  I  say  it  ?)  bears  out 

*  my  suspicion.' 

Cardinal  Newman  having  shown  that  the  soul  is  the 
subject  of  original  justice,  and  that  the  Immaculate  Con- 
ception teaches  that  the  soul  of  our  Lady  was  clad  with 
that  supernatural  endowment  (which  we  had  forfeited 
by  Adam's  sin),  and  as  a  consequence  all  the  rebellion  of 
nature  was  hushed  within  her,  Dr.  Pusey  perseveres  in 
saying,  in  his  answer,  that  '  unless  some  authoritative  2nd  Letter 
'  explanation  is  given  by  the  Roman  Church,  it  seems  to  man.'^'p^^sT 
'  me  inevitable  that  under  the  term  "  Immaculate  Con- 
ception,"  which  is  to  be  declared  to  be  of  faith,  the 
'conception  of  the  body  of  the  Blessed  Virgin  will  be  in- 

*  eluded.' 

He  forgets  that  the  definition  is  for  Catholics  ;  and 
Catholics  have  their  definition  of  original  sin  provided  for 
them  by  the  living  Church.  They  are  in  no  danger  of 
adopting  some  theory,  which  Dr.  Pusey  can  discover  has 

p 


2IO 


Puscy  and  Laua 


been  held  by  some  one,  in  some  past  time.  And  it 
betrays  a  painful  unwillingness  to  be  corrected,  when  he 
refuses  to  accept  Cardinal  Newman's  explanation,  not  of 
what  he  believes,  but  of  what  the  Catholic  Church  holds, 
and  to  speak  of  it  as  though  it  were  Cardinal  Newman's 
opinion.  And  even  when  the  late  Bishop  of  Orleans 
informs  Dr.  Pusey  of  what  the  Church  teaches,  and  his 
testimony  coincides  with  Cardinal  Newman's,  what  can 
be  more  painful  than  to  read  such  a  sentence  as  the 
following?  '  While,  then,  I  am  thankful  that  Mgr.  Dupan- 
'  loup  and  yourself  still  maintain  the  old  distinction,  I 
'  hope  I  shall  not  seem  to  you,  at  least,  my  dearest  friend, 
'  to  be  presuming,  if  I  think  that  in  this,  too,  an  explana- 
'  tion,  which  would  remove  difficulties  from  us,  would  be 
'  of  service  to  you,  if  the  Church  of  Rome  wishes  the 
'  Immaculate  Conception,  as  matter  of  faith,  to  be  under- 
'  stood  of  the  soul  only  of  the  Blessed  Virgin,  and  not  of 
'  her  body  also.  Without  some  such  explanation,  I  should 
'  have  feared  (sic)  that  the  belief  of  the  Immaculate  Con- 
'  ception  among  you  would  be  what  to  us  seems  the  most 
'  natural  explanation  of  the  words  of  the  Bull,  &:c.' 

I  forbear  to  comment  on  a  passage  such  as  this, 
which  I  can  only  describe  as  painful  to  the  last  degree. 
Dr.  Pusey's  '  care  for  all  the  Churches  '  was  uncalled  for, 
to  say  the  least  ;  and  is  not  the  above  passage,  to  put 
it  as  euphemistically  as  possible,  hypercritical  and  cap- 
tious ? 

cf.  Harper,  Another  singular  mistake  that  Dr.  Pusey  has  made 
through  the  is  in  the  way  he  traces  Marian  devotion  to  a  particular 
p.'^339!'  reading  in  the  Protevangelium,  viz.  '  She  shall  bruise,' 
where  the  authorised  English  version  reads,  '  It  shall 
'  bruise.'  He  mistakes  the  date  at  which  that  reading 
appeared  ;  he  omits  to  give  its  fair  weight  to  the  first 
part  of  the  sentence,  '  I  will  put  enmity  between  thee 
'  and  the  woman,'  with  all  the  patristic  commentaries  on 


Puscy  and  Land 


211 


'  the  woman,'  referring  the  expression  to  Mary  ;  and  he 
ignores  the  immense  Uterature  on  the  gender  of  the  pro- 
noun, amongst  CathoHc  theologians,  taking  either  side, 
without  feehng  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Immaculate 
Conception  was  dependent  on  that  word,  but  rather  on 
the  first  part  of  the  sentence. 

Still  more  strangely,  he  puts  the  Feast  of  the  Concep- 
tion several  centuries  later  in  its  origin  than  is  the  case, 
and  he  deals  with  S.  Bernards  opposition  to  the  way 
in  which  the  Feast  was  introduced  into  the  Church  at 
Lyons,  as  though  the  Feast  were  an  entirely  new  thing, 
and  new  in  the  sense  that  it  would  constitute  an  addition 
to  the  Faith.  Whereas  S.  Bernard  dealt  with  it  as  a 
matter  that  might  at  any  time  be  settled  either  way  by 
the  Holy  See.  The  chasm  between  S.  Bernard  and  Dr. 
Pusey,  in  their  attitude  towards  this  subject,  is  immeasur- 
able, when  we  consider  that  S.  Bernard  says  :  '  I  more  P'^ 
'  especially  refer  this  whole  matter,  as  I  do  all  others  of 
'the  same  sort,  entirely  to  the  authority  and  adjudication 
'  of  the  Roman  Church,  and  am  prepared,  if  my  opinion 
'is  different  from  it,  to  conform  myself  to  its  judgment.' 

Further,  Dr.  Pusey  quotes  Melchior  Canus,  a  Triden- 
tine  theologian,  as  saying  that  'all  the  saints,  who  speak 
'  of  it,  say  with  one  voice,  that  the  Blessed  Virgin  was 
'conceived  in  original  sin.' 

It  is  worth  noticing  that  before  the  subject  was 
thoroughly  investigated,  it  would  be  quite  possible  for 
anyone  to  use  that  phrase  without  further  explanation. 
Referring  to  the  'active  '  conception  which  concerned  the 
parents,  they  might  thus  say,  with  S.  Augustine,  'that 
'  Mary,  by  reason  of  her  descent  from  Adam,  died  on 
'account  of  sin' — which  every  Catholic  holds  to  this 
day.  Only  a  Catholic  knows  that  Mary,  though  incurring 
the  debt  of  the  original  transgression,  was  freed  from  it 
at  the  moment  of  her  conception  by  the  merits  of  the 

P  2 


212 


Ptisey  and  Laud 


Redeemer.  Our  Lord  alone  did  not  incur  the  debt, 
since  He  alone  was  conceived  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 

But  in  point  of  fact,  the  Saints  have  not  supplied  us 
with  such  a  catena  of  doubtful  theology.  The  words 
which  Dr.  Pusey  quotes  as  those  of  Melchior  Canus  are 
not  his,  but  the  words  of  Erasmus,  which  Melchior  Canus 
repudiates. 

Dr.  Pusey  also  cites  a  bishop  of  the  14th  century, 
whose  words,  as  quoted,  seem  to  supply  strong  evidence 
in  his  favour.  It  is  Alvarus  Pelagius.  But  the  passage 
was  not  written  by  him. 

But  of  all  writers,  Dr.  Pusey  has  relied  most  on 
Turrecremata,  the  Pope's  theologian,  as  he  is  described. 
The  ponderous  tome  which  Dr.  Pusey  re-issued  cer- 
tainly seems,  at  first  sight,  to  contain  formidable  evi- 
dence against  any  general  belief  in  the  dogma  of  the 
Immaculate  Conception. 

There  is  no  known  writer,  according  to  Dr.  Pusey, 
who  has  more  thoroughly  and  accurately  sifted  the 
subject  than  this  Turrecremata.  He  has  marshalled 
one  hundred  witnesses  against  the  doctrine  of  the 
Immaculate  Conception,  from  Holy  Scripture  and  the 
Fathers,  and  Dr.  Pusey  has  been  at  infinite  pains  to  re- 
produce his  volume  and  analyse  and  verify  its  contents. 
It  lay  hid  in  a  library  in  Paris,  if  I  remember  rightly, 
and  I  well  remember  the  intense  satisfaction  which  he 
experienced  in  unearthing  it  and  publishing  it  anew. 

And  yet,  after  all,  what  was  Turrecremata's  work  ? 
It  was  a  case  drawn  up  by  him  as  Promotor  Fidei.  He 
tells  us  so  himself  It  is  not  necessary  that  a  Promotor 
Fidei  should  believe  in  the  truth  of  the  side  he  adopts. 
He  has  to  do  his  very  best  to  prove  it,  so  that  each  side 
may  be  thoroughly  represented — one  side  by  him  and 
the  other  by  his  adversary.  It  is  true  there  are  signs 
that  Turrecremata  did  believe  in  the  side  that  he  was 


Piiscy  and  Laud 


213 


commissioned  to  adopt.  But  there  is  also  evidence  that 
this  work,  which  was  drawn  up  expressly  to  represent  one 
side,  does  not  express  Turrecremata's  mature  conviction 
on  the  subject.  There  is  a  book,  which  may  be  seen 
by  anyone  in  the  British  Museum,  under  the  heading 
'  Bridget,'  that  contains  certain  proof  that  nine  years 
after  (1435)  Turrecremata  considered  the  full  doctrine 
of  the  Immaculate  Conception  to  be  in  accordance 
with  Holy  Scripture.  It  fell  to  his  lot  to  promote  the 
canonisation  of  S.  Bridget.  Now,  some  of  S.  Bridget's 
'  revelations '  concerned  the  Immaculate  Conception. 
She  had  more  than  one  '  revelation  '  on  the  subject. 
Turrecremata  tells  us  that  he  had  read  every  word  of 
these  '  revelations  '  through  with  the  greatest  care,  and 
weighed  the  pros  and  cotis  of  their  agreement  with  tra- 
dition and  Scripture.  And  his  decision  is,  that  they  are 
'  authentic,  and  full  of  truth,  truly  taught  by  the  Spirit  of 
*God.'  In  one  of  these,  our  Lady  says  to  Bridget,  '  It 
'is  the  truth  that  I  was  conceived  without  original  sin.' 
And  this  does  not  stand  alone.  Yet  of  these  Turrecremata 
says,  '  Nihil  continent,  quod  intellectum  habeat  adversum 
'  Sacras  Scripturae  aut  doctrinse  sanctorum  doctorum  ab 
*  ecclesia  approbatorum.' 

Clearly,  therefore,  the  Cardinal,  on  whose  opinion 
Dr.  Pusey  places  so  much  reliance,  came  to  the  con- 
clusion that  the  Immaculate  Conception  of  our  Lady  was 
in  accordance  with  '  Holy  Scripture,  and  the  teaching 
'of  the  holy  doctors  approved  in  the  Church.' 

The  case,  then,  as  put  by  Dr.  Pusey  entirely  breaks 
down. 

As  one  who  loved  and  admired  Dr.  Pusey,  it  is  not 
without  a  sense  of  anguish  that  I  contemplate  the 
enormous  industry  which  he  employed  in  a  cause  so  un- 
worthy of  his  perseverance. 

I  shall  conclude  this  chapter  with  a  singular  instance 


214 


Pusey  and  Land 


of  similar  inaccuracy  in  dealing  with  the  Fathers,  in  one, 
of  whose  work  Dr.  Pusey  may  be  considered  in  some 
sort  the  '  continuator.'    I  mean  Archbishop  Laud. 

When  Mr.  Allies  wrote  to  Alexander,  Bishop  of 
Brechin,'  telling  him  that  he  '  seemed  to  see  facts  proving 
'  the  whole  Ultramontane  claim,'  the  bishop  wrote  him  a 
sympathetic  letter,  containing  this  question  :  '  Do  you 
'think  Barrow,  and  Bramhall,  and  Laud's  line  utterly 
'  untenable  ?  I  confess  that  even  if  these  are  weak  on 
'  first  principles,  they  are  strong  in  uncomfortable  facts, 
'  which  would  be  sure  to  haunt  one  when  over.' 

The  bishop  little  knew  how,  by  the  grace  of  God, 
those  who  '  go  over  '  from  proper  motives  find  themselves 
at  once  like  one  looking  at  a  pictured  window  from  the 
inside,  as  compared  with  seeing  only  its  dark,  unintelligible 
mass  from  the  outside.  He  little  knew  how  nothing  seems 
to  them  so  strange  as  that  they  could  have  been  under 
the  delusion  of  imagining  they  were  in  the  Church, 
when  they  were  in  schism.  If  anyone  in  the  Church  of 
England  is  troubled  with  Barrow,  let  him  read  Mr.  Colin 
Lindsay's  expose  of  that  divine.  As  for  Laud,  here  are 
some  '  uncomfortable  facts  '  on  which  he  depended  on  a 
most  crucial  question. 

In  his  controversy  with  Fisher,  he  comes  across  a 
letter  of  S.  Augustine's,  altogether  condemnatory  of  the 
position  taken  up  by  the  divines  of  the  '  Reformation.' 
It  is  this.  When  the  Donatists  appealed  to  Constantine, 
the  Emperor,  to  obtain  his  support  against  their  opponents, 
the  African  Catholics,  the  Emperor  rebuked  them  for 
seeking  the  aid  of  temporal  authority,  and  referred  them 
to  S.  Melchiades,  the  Pope.  This  was  in  the  beginning 
of  the  fourth  century,  and  was  an  awkward  fact  for  the 
Anglican  position.    How  does  Laud  deal  with  it  ? 

'  A  Life's  Decision  (p.  318),  by  T.  W.  Allies.  Kegan  Paul, 
Trench,  and  Co. 


Puscy  and  Laud  215 

He  is  commenting  upon  the  celebrated  saying  of  S. 
Augustine,  '  In  Romana  ecclesia  semper  Apostolicse 
'  Cathedrae  viguit  Principatus '  ('  In  the  Roman  Church  the 
'  Princedom  of  the  ApostoHc  See  was  ever  in  force,')  and 
he  says  :  '  To  prove  that  S.  Augustine  did  not  intend  by 
principatus  here  to  give  the  Roman  Bishop  any  power  out 
'  of  his  own  Hmits,  I  shall  make  it  most  manifest  out  of 
'  the  very  same  epistle.  For  afterwards,  saith  S.  Augustine 
'  when  the  pertinacity  of  the  Donatists  could  not  be  re- 
'  strained  by  the  African  bishops  only,  they  gave  them 
'  leave  to  be  heard  by  foreign  bishops  '  (i.e.  the  African 
Bishops  gave  the  Donatists  leave). 

This  is  an  extraordinary  misrepresentation.  The 
Donatists  did  not  wish  to  be  heard  by  '  foreign  bishops.' 
But  S.  Augustine  says  they  ought  to  have  wished  it.  S. 
Augustine  says  that  if  only  they  had  referred  the  matter 
outside  their  own  province,  in  the  way  the  Emperor  sug- 
gested, all  might  have  been  well.  Much  as  if  he  should 
say  now  :  '  If  you  who  are  quarrelling  on  the  subject  of 
'  sacerdotalism  in  the  Church  of  England,  would  only  refer 
'the  matter,  not  to  the  Queen  in  council,  but  to  "foreign 
'  "bishops,"  to  "bishops  beyond  the  sea,"  all  might  be 
'well.'  If  the  Queen,  or  the  Bishop  of  Lincoln,  were  to 
do  what  S.  Augustine  thought  the  Donatists  ought  to  do, 
they  would  refer  the  matter  to  Leo  XIII. 

2.  Laud  continues  :  '  And  after  that  he '  {i.e.  S.  Augus- 
tine) 'hath  these  words,  "And  yet  peradventure  Mel- 
'  "chiades,  the  Bishop  of  the  Roman  Church,  with  his 
' "  colleagues  the  transmarine  bishops,  twn  debuit,  ought 
' "  not  to  usurp  to  himself  this  judgment,  which  was  deter- 
'  "  mined  by  seventy  African  bishops,  Tigesitanus  sitting 
'  "  as  Primate." ' 

Here  is  another  misrepresentation.  This  is,  not  what 
S.  Augustine  gives  as  his  own  opinion,  but  what  he 
puts  into  the  mouth  of  the  Donatists,  to  condemn  it.  It 


2l6 


Piisey  and  Laud 


represents  the  error  of  the  Donatists,  according  to  S. 
Augustine.  The  Donatists  did  not  wish  to  refer  matters 
to  the  Pope,  but  thought  that  a  synod  of  their  own  nation 
was  sufficient.  S.  Augustine  scouted  the  notion  of  such 
autonomy,  and  such  a  termination  of  affairs.  Laud  has 
thus  reversed  S.  Augustine's  opinion,  and  rested  his  case 
for  the  Church  of  England  on  the  error  of  the  Donatist 
schismatics. 

3.  Again,  in  reference  to  the  Emperor,  Laud  continues  : 
'  Lastly,  lest  the  Pope  and  his  adherents  should  say  this 
'  was  an  usurpation  in  the  Emperor '  (Laud  seems  to 
imagine  that  the  Emperor  was  willing  to  undertake  the 
case),  '  S.  Augustine  tells  us  a  little  before,  in  the  same 
'  epistle  still,  that  this  does  chiefly  belong  "  ad  curam  ejus  " 
'  to  the  Emperor's  care  and  charge,  and  that  he  is  to  give 
'  an  account  to  God  for  it.' 

This  would  be  a  telling  defence  of  the  Anglican  posi- 
tion, if  it  were  true.  It  was  not  the  Pope  and  his  ad- 
herents, but  the  Do7iatists,  who  said  it  was  an  usurpation  on 
the  part  of  the  Emperor.  The  Emperor  took  upon  him- 
self to  refer  the  Donatists  to  the  Pope,  and  they  resented 
this.  S.  Augustine  says  the  Emperor  was  justified  in 
doing  this.  Why  ?  He  does  not  say,  as  in  Laud's  mis- 
translation, 'this  does  chiefly  belong.'  It  is  the  past,  not 
the  present  tense.  S.  Augustine  says  that  on  that  occa- 
sion it  '  did  belong  '  to  the  Emperor  to  make  the  sugges- 
tion he  did,  for  the  Donatists  had  themselves  appealed  to 
the  Emperor.  And  since  the  Emperor  referred  them  to 
the  Pope,  to  the  Pope  they  ought  to  have  gone. 

Would  it  be  possible  to  produce  a  more  thorough 
misrepresentation  than  this  which  Laud  has  given  of 
S.  Augustine  ? 

See  Sconce's       A  Douatist  says,  the  Bishop  of  Rome  has  no  business 

■  Testimonv  .  _ 

of  Ami-  '    to  revise  the  decision  of  a  General  Council.    S.  Augus- 

Sydney,  tine  thiuks  it  would  have  been  better  for  the  Donatists  to 
1843. 


Puscy  and  Laud 


217 


have  appealed  to  Rome.  Laud's  misrepresentation  is 
that  S.  Augustine  says  what  in  point  of  fact  S.  Augustine 
condemned  the  Donatists  for  saying. 

Is  it  surprising,  if  this  was  the  way  in  which  Arch- 
bishop Laud  read  the  Fathers,  that  he  '  remained  where 
'  he  was  '  ?  If,  as  the  Bishop  of  Brechin  said,  he  was  '  weak 
'  on  first  principles '  he  seems  to  have  been  weaker  still  in 
his  '  uncomfortable  facts.' 


2l8 


TJie  Lincoln  Prosecution 


CHAPTER  XI. 

THE  LINCOLN  PROSECUTION, 
OR  METROPOLITICAL  JURISDICTION. 

There  is  a  general  feeling  that  the  trial  of  the  Bishop  of 
Lincoln  marks  an  epoch  in  the  history  of  the  Church  of 
England. 

The  circumstances  are  as  strange  as  they  could  well 
be.  For  more  than  three  centuries  and  a  half  Rome  has 
treated  the  Anglican  Establishment  as  no  part  of  the 
Church.  There  has  been  no  difference  at  Rome  in  theory 
or  practice  in  regard  to  the  Anglican  ministry.  Any  clergy- 
man making  his  submission  to  Rome  within  the  last 
300  years  has  been  dealt  with  as  though  he  had  never 
been  ordained.  The  question  was  settled  at  the  time 
of  the  Reformation  by  contemporary  Popes,  and  all 
the  evidence  that  modern  times  have  brought  to  bear 
on  the  question  is  considered  to  have  shown  that  the 
English  Church  is  not  in  a  position  to  prove  herself  in 
possession  of  a  priesthood.  She  has  never  produced,  and 
never  will  be  able  to  produce,  the  one  document  that 
would  prove  her  succession — the  consecration  of  Bishop 
Barlow.  Rome  does  not  know  of  any  doctrine  of  co- 
consecrators  ;  it  is  merely  a  theory  invented  for  the  oc- 
casion by  the  interested  parties.  Rome  does  demand 
proof  of  an  intention  to  make  sacrificing  priests  on  the 
part  of  the  consecrators,  and  none  can  be  given.  Till 


The  Lincoln  Prosecution 


2ig 


the  day  of  doom  there  is  not  the  remotest  chance  of  Rome 
ever  altering  her  judgment  in  this  matter.  The  evidence 
is  before  her,  and  her  mature  judgment  has  been  given. 

Meanwhile  an  influential  party  has  arisen  within  the 
Establishment  claiming  to  have  the  power  to  '  make  the 
'  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ,'  and  offer  the  Sacrifice  of  the 
Altar,  and  dispense  forgiveness  of  sins.  Rome  tells  them, 
that  coidd  this  be  proved,  and  could  they  clear  themselves 
from  complicity  with  heresy  in  other  matters,  they  would 
still  want  one  thing,  which  is  vital,  and  that  is  authority  to 
exercise  their  orders — in  a  word,  jurisdiction. 

Jurisdiction  is  a  dry  word  to  English  ears  :  it  is  an 
unwelcome  subject  to  most  '  High  Churchmen,'  and  it  is 
one  on  which  Anglican  literature  is  peculiarly  meagre, 
concerning  which,  too,  the  confusion  that  exists  is  per- 
fectly astonishing.    And  yet  it  is  the  pivot  on  which  all 
hangs.    If  you  have  orders,  by  what  authority  do  you 
exercise  them  here,  and  not  there  ?  You  do  not  pretend 
to  be  able  to  exercise  them  everywhere  indiscriminately. 
You  carve  out  a  diocese  :  in  other  words  you  authorise 
a  certain  person  to  exercise  his  episcopal  orders  within  a 
certain  area,  and  not  outside  of  it.    Bishop  Stubbs  says  : 
'The  Bishop  has  jurisdiction  in  himself '  ('Eastern  Church 
'Assoc.  Papers,'  No.  i).   But  he  cannot  use  it  until  he 
has  subjects  given  to  him.    He  must  go  there,  and  there 
only,  where  a  vacant  place  has  been  provided.  vSome 
authority  must  intervene  and  assign  to  him  his  sphere  of 
operation  ;  and  when  his  sphere  is  thus  assigned,  he 
must  operate  according  to  certain  laws  ;  he  is  there  to 
teach  a  certain  body  of  truth,  and  that  alone.   He  has 
authority  for  that,  and  only  for  that.    If  he  goes  to  his 
diocese,  and  uses  his  authority  to  teach  Mormonism,  he 
violates  the  conditions  on  which  he  holds  that  authority. 
He  lias  to  see  that  the  clergy  under  him  teach  the  same 
body  of  truths.    He  is  responsible  to  his  Divine  Lord 


220  Tlie  Lincoln  Prosecution 


for  the  way  in  which  he  fulfils  his  function.  All  agree  to 
that. 

But  is  he  responsible  to  no  one  else?  Can  every 
bishop  teach  what  he  pleases,  and  act  as  he  pleases, 
without  coming  under  the  corrective  authority  of  any 
superior  jurisdiction  ?  No  one  holds  this.  The  superior 
authority  exists  somewhere.  Until  the  time  of  the 
Reformation,  every  English  bishop  acknowledged  one 
superior  authority  over  all,  an  authority  believed  to  rest 
on  Holy  Scripture.  He  took  a  solemn  oath  of  obedience 
to  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  acknowledging  him  to  be  the 
successor  of  S.  Peter,  and,  as  such,  the  Vicar  of  Christ. 
No  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  exercised  his  jurisdiction 
until  he  received  authority  from  Rome.  This  authority 
was  conferred  from  the  earliest  days  of  the  English 
Wilkins,  Church.  The  following  petition  went  to  Rome  :  '  Your 
p°i99.  '  devoted  daughter,  the  Church  of  Canterbury,  asks  that 
'  the  pallium  taken  from  tlie  body  of  the  Blessed  Peter,  may 
'  be  granted  to  its  elect,  who  has  been  consecrated,  in 
'  order  that  he  may  have  the  plenitude  of  his  ofifice,  and 
*  for  this  it  supplicates  your  Holiness  with  earnestness  and 
'Alleged  '  Urgency.'  The  Pope  then  consecrated  the  fillet  of  white 
ofAngUcan-  wool,  and  it  was  placed  over-night  on  the  tomb  of  S. 
ism,  p.  8.  Peter,  to  symbolise  the  truth  that  the  grant  of  metro- 
political  power  was  a  participation  of  S.  Peter's  royalty. 
On  receiving  it,  the  Archbishop  took  oath  that  he  would 
help  'to  defend  and  to  maintain,  against  every  man, 
'the  Papacy  of  the  Roman  Church,  and  the  royalty  of 
'S.  Peter.' 

'Alleged  '^^^^  Archbishop  was  then  free  to  consecrate  bishops, 

Amiquity,'  and  e.xercise  all  metropolitical  jurisdiction.  His  juris- 
diction was  considered  as  coming  through  the  successor 
of  S.  Peter  from  S.  Peter  himself.  So  it  was  an  Apostolic 
jurisdiction.  And  it  came  through  S.  Peter  from  Him 
to  whom  all  authority  was  given  in  heaven  and  on  earth. 


The  Lincoln  Prosecution  221 


It  is  said  that  once  a  Bishop  of  Lincoln  was  conse- 
crated by  his  Metropolitan  before  the  Archbishop  had 
received  his  pallium.  The  present  Bishop  of  Lincoln 
(supposing,  for  the  moment,  his  orders  to  be  valid)  has 
also  been  consecrated  by  an  Archbishop,  who  has  never 
received  the  pallium  from  Rome.  Compare  the  circum- 
stances of  each.  The  earlier  Bishop  of  Lincoln  was 
consecrated  by  S.  Anselm  in  the  times  of  the  anti-popes, 
but  it  was  not  because  S.  Anselm  did  not  recognise  the 
value  of  jurisdiction  from  S.  Peter's  See ;  on  the  contrary, 
S.  Anselm  says  :  '  If  I,  a  Metropolitan,  consecrated  to  the 
'  espiscopate,  neither  seek  the  Pope  in  person,  nor  ask  the 
'  pallium,  during  the  whole  of  my  first  year,  I  justly  deserve 
'  to  be  deprived  of  the  dignity.'  And  this,  he  tells  us,  was 
because  the  Pope  was  the  successor  of  S.  Peter. 

How  different  the  circumstances  under  which  the 
present  Bishop  of  Lincoln  was  consecrated  by  an  Arch- 
bishop (in  name,  at  least)  who  never  received  the  pallium  ! 
He  cannot  ask  for  it  :  he  has  no  connection  with 
the  successor  of  S.  Peter,  who  is  also  Patriarch  of  the 
West.  Archbishop  Benson  holds  a  position,  on  any  sup- 
position, not  recognised  by  the  Nicene  Canons,  for  they 
contemplated  not  simply  Metropolitans,  but  what  are 
called  Superior  Metropolitans.  The  patriarchate  was 
there,  though  not  yet  the  name.  The  English  Church,  in 
losing  its  connection  with  the  Primate  of  the  Universal 
Church,  has  lost  its  connecting  ties  with  the  patriarch  of 
the  West.  The  patriarchate,  however,  although  primitive, 
is  not  of  the  essence  of  the  Church's  constitution,  but 
obedience  to  authority  is,  and  the  Primacy  of  S.  Peter's 
successor. 

What  has  taken  its  place  ?  It  is  this  that  the  Bishop 
of  Lincoln's  trial  may  perchance  force  on  men's  attention. 

There  is  either  no  jurisdiction  in  the  Church  of 
England,  or  it  derives  from  the  State. 


222  Tlie  Lincoln  Prosecution 


It  is,  however,  impossible  to  say  there  is  no  jurisdic- 
tion. For  jurisdiction  is  exercised  in  assigning  to  an 
ordained  man  the  sphere  in  which  he  is  to  use  his 
ministerial  capacities  ;  it  is  exercised  in  assigning  to  a 
clergyman,  who  is  consecrated  to  the  episcopal  office,  a 
particular  diocese.  Whence  does  this  jurisdiction  come  ? 
\\'as  it  not  this  very  question  that  produced  the  whole 
Tractarian  movement  ?  It  was  the  suppression  of  Irish 
sees  by  Act  of  Parliament  that  produced  the  '  Tracts  for 
'  the  Times' — that  is  to  say,  an  act  of  ecclesiastical  jurisdic- 
tion on  the  part  of  the  civil  power.  It  was  the  question 
of  jurisdiction,  the  perception  that  S.  Peter's  See  was  its 
source,  that  by  the  grace  of  God,  led  Dr.  Newman  into 
the  Catholic  Church.  It  was  the  same  question  that  led 
Archdeacon  Manning  and  Mr.  Allies  and  Robert  Isaac 
Wilberforce  into  the  same  green  pastures. 

It  has  been  the  burning  question  every  now  and 
again  ;  but  every  now  and  again,  as  lately,  it  is  ignored. 
It  came  to  the  front  for  a  while  through  the  action  of 
Bishop  Gray  in  the  Colenso  case,  and  many  of  us  first 
made  the  acquaintance  of  Van  Espen  through  Bishop 
Gray's  pamphlets.  But  of  late  years,  there  has  been  in 
many  quarters  a  tendency  to  ignore  the  subject.  '  We 
'  have  orders,  we  have  sacraments,  what  matters  jurisdic- 
'  tion  ? '  has  been  practically  the  answer  given  to  inquiries 
about  it.  Then  Dr.  Littledale  maintained  that  most 
absurd  of  all  theories — that  jurisdiction  has  been  lost  in 
the  West  altogether,  through  the  supposed  simoniacal 
election  of  certain  Popes.  And  so,  since  there  is  no  law- 
ful jurisdiction  anywhere,  what  need  to  trouble  about  it 
in  England  ? 

The  logical  issue  of  the  contention  that  all  jurisdiction 
has  been  lost,  is  Congregationalism.  Indeed,  Congrega- 
tionalism is  in  one  sense  more  intelligible  than  this  new 
theory.    It  is  a  more  intelligible  theory  that  our  Lord 


The  Lincoln  Prosecution  223 


never  intended  that  ther^|  should  be  any  connecting  links 
between  the  various  units,  or  congregations,  of  the  Church, 
than  that  authoritative  jurisdiction  should  have  existed 
in  the  Church  for  nearly  1,000  years,  and  then  have  been 
lost. 

But,  after  all,  jurisdiction  is  exercised  in  the  Estab- 
lishment.   The  Bishop  of  Lincoln  has  taken  an  oath  of 

homage  which  runs  thus  :  '  I,   ,  Doctor  in  Divinity, 

'  now  elected,  confirmed,  and  consecrated  Bishop  of  , 

'  do  hereby  declare  that  Your  Majesty  is  the  only  supreme 
'  governor  of  this  your  realm,  in  spiritual  and  ecclesiastical 
'  things,  as  well  as  in  temporal,  and  that  no  foreign  prelate 
'  or  potentate  has  any  jurisdiction  in  this  realm,  &c.' 
This  latter  portion  sweeps  away  the  Nicene  canon  con- 
cerning 'Metropolitans,'  or  as  they  were  afterwards  called, 
Patriarchs,  with  Metropolitans  subject  to  their  jurisdiction; 
and  the  whole  forms  as  plain  a  contradiction  to  the  oath 
taken  by  every  Bishop  of  Lincoln  before  the  Reformation, 
as  words  could  express.  The  continuity  of  doctrine  on 
this  point,  at  any  rate,  has  been  broken.  Imagine  this 
oath  being  proposed  to  S.  Anselm  !  Imagine  the  holy 
indignation  with  which  he  would  have  spurned  it ! 

The  Queen's  Majesty,  acting  through  her  representa- 
tives, has  told  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  that  he  has 
jurisdiction  over  the  Bishop  of  Lincoln. 

Whence  did  the  Archbishop  derive  his  own  metropo- 
litical  jurisdiction  ?  We  have  already  seen  that  Henry 
VIII.  're-created'  Canterbury  to  be  a  Mctropolitical  See, 
and  the  present  Archbishop  took  his  oath  to  Queen 
Victoria  acknowledging  her  '  the  only  supreme  governor ' 
of  the  realm  'in  spiritual  and  ecclesiastical  things.' 

The  Archbishop,  as  in  duty  bound,  has  cited  the 
Bishop  of  Lincoln  to  appear  before  him  in  a  court, 
which  is  of  first  instance  only.  The  appeal  lies  to  another 
court,  the  Privy  Council.    So  that  the  Archbishop  has 


224  '^^^^  Lincoln  Prosecution 


admitted  the  right  of  a  higher  court  to  determine  his 
jurisdiction  in  settHng  how  the  most  sacred  service  of 
the  Church  is  to  be  conducted.  And  whatever  happens 
beyond  this,  one  thing  is  quite  certain,  viz.,  that  there 
will  be  no  appeal  outside  the  kingdom.  And  yet  Lord 
Halifax  has  said  publicly  that  '  the  sacerdotal  character 
'  of  the  clergy  '  is  at  stake — that,  in  fact,  '  the  sacramental 
'  principle '  is  on  its  trial.  The  Bishop  of  Lincoln  has 
said  the  same  himself.  But  if  the  Establishment  be 
indeed  a  part  of  the  Church,  how  can  such  questions  as 
these  be  finally  settled  without  communication  with  the 
rest  of  the  Church  ?  How  can  it  be  supposed  that  a 
Metropolitan,  even  at  Canterbury,  can  be  the  final  court 
of  appeal  on  such  a  question  ?  How  can  authority,  how 
can  jurisdiction,  stop  at  a  Metropolitan  ? 

It  is  here  that  Bishop  Stubbs  (I.e.)  comes  in  with  his 
statement  that  the  question  of  jurisdiction  'belongs  to 
'  the  general  subject  of  the  supremacy  claimed  by  the  See 
'  of  Rome  and  the  independence  of  national  Churches.' 

Yes  ;  this  is  the  real  cry — the  independence  of  national 
Churches.  It  was  the  foundation  on  which  Dr.  Pusey 
rested  his  whole  argument.  No  words  better  express 
the  defence  given  by  the  ordinary  English  Churchman 
than  a  sentence  of  Dr.  Pusey's  in  his  '  Eirenicon,'  page  66 : 
'  England  is  not  at  this  moment  more  independent  of 
'  any  authority  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome  than  Africa  was  in 
'  the  days  of  S.  Augustine.' 

No  sweeter  sound  to  an  Englishman's  ear  than  that 
of  independence,  and,  above  all,  independence  of  Rome. 
And  Africa,  with  its  many  saintly  bishops  and  martyrs, 
and  its  S.  Augustine,  in  the  fourth  century  !  To  be  only 
what  the  church  of  Africa  was  in  the  fifth  century  is,  it 
would  seem,  to  be  well  within  the  laws  of  the  Church's 
constitution. 

But  there  never  was  a  greater  misapprehension  than 


TJie  Lincoln  Prosecution 


to  suppose  that  the  African  Church  was  independent  of 
Rome  in  the  fourth  or  fifth  centuries. 

We  have  already  seen  how  mistaken  Archbishop 
Laud  was  on  this  matter.  Let  us  see  how  thoroughly 
mistaken  Anglicans  are  now,  in  resting  their  case  so 
much  on  the  supposed  autonomy  of  the  African  Church  ; 
but,  in  particular,  on  the  opinion  of  S.  Augustine. 

They  refer  us  to  the  case  of  Apiarius.  That  is  to  say, 
a  priest  appealed  straight  to  Rome,  and,  for  some  reason 
or  other,  his  appeal  was  received,  and  friction  ensued. 
A  Papal  legate,  of  overbearing  manners,  rendered  the 
friction  more  acute. 

But  Van  Espen's  judgment  (a  writer  on  whom 
Anglicans  are  wont  to  rely,  even  to  excess)  is  absolutely 
correct,  viz.  that  '  no  schism  arose  between  the  Roman 
'and  African  Churches  through  the  affairs  of  Apiarius.' 

There  are  some  points  in  the  history  of  the  whole 
matter  which  seem  to  be  invariably  ignored  by  Anglican 
writers.  And  yet  they  are  points  which  alter  the  whole 
bearing  of  the  case. 

One  is  this,  that  the  very  canons  against  which  the 
African  bishops  complained  were  eventually  received  into 
the  African  code.  They  are  found  in  the  abridgment 
of  the  African  canons,  by  Ferrandus,  in  the  following 
century.  Now  this  tends  to  diminish  the  aptness  of  the 
parallel  drawn  between  the  African  Church  in  the  fifth 
century  and  the  English  Church  in  the  sixteenth.  The 
contention  of  the  bishops  of  Africa,  put  in  '  the  light 
most  favourable  to  the  Anglican  theory,  was  not  the  final 
judgment  of  the  African  Church.  '  Respice  finem  '  is  true 
of  a  Church  as  well  as  of  an  individual. 

Next,  the  whole  point  of  the  discussion  between 
Rome  and  the  African  bishops  related,  not  to  the  exist- 
ence of  supreme  authority  in  the  Holy  See,  but  to  the 
law  of  its  exercise.    It  was  an  admitted  principle  on  all 

Q 


226  TJie  Lt7icoln  Prosecution 


sides,  expressly  stated  by  Pope  after  Pope,  that  his 
universal  pastorate  over  the  Church  was  to  be  exercised 
in  accordance  with  the  canons.    The  very  Pope  in  this 
Ceiestin.  Ep.  case  says  to  the  bishops  of  Illyria  :  '  Let  the  ruler  lord 

3,  apuil 

Consiant.  '  It  ovcr  US,  and  let  us  not  lord  it  over  the  ruler ;  as  we  pro- 
'fess  to  keep  the  canons,  let  us  be  subject  to  the  canons.' 
Of  course,  the  canons  had  been  confirmed  by  Papal 
authority,  and  to  the  constitutional  mode  of  its  exercise 
contained  in  them,  the  Pope  professed  to  adhere.  The 
principle,  therefore,  for  which  the  African  bishops  con- 
tended was  acknowledged  by  the  Popes,  viz.  that  the 
authority  of  the  Holy  See  was  to  be  exercised  according 
to  the  canons  by  which  it  had  already  bound  itself  The 
bishops  were  mistaken  as  to  a  matter  of  fact,  viz.  the 
authority  of  the  Sardican  canon.  Again  the  African 
Church  had  already,  about  forty  years  before,  adopted  a 
principle  which,  if  it  had  only  been  observed,  would 
have  saved  all  the  trouble.  A  court  of  appeal  was  pro- 
vided by  the  canons,  which  they  seem  strangely  to  have 
overlooked.  There  was  no  court  of  local  appeal  in  use 
at  the  time.  The  clergy  were  left  to  the  cumbrous 
machinery  of  a  Provincial  or  General  Council,  i.e.  a 
Council  of  all  Africa.  But  there  should  have  been  an 
intermediate  court  of  appeal  from  a  bishop's  decision, 
more  easy  of  access.  And  it  was  to  this  point  that  the 
Papal  legate  addressed  himself  The  complaint  of  the 
African  bishops  was  this  :  'Those,  therefore,'  (i.e.  those 
bishops)  'who  are  interdicted  communion  in  their  own 
'  provinces,  ought  not  to  be  restored  by  your  Holiness 
'•prematurely  and  against  the  rules  ;  and  you  ought  to  re- 
'  ject  the  priests  and  other  clergy  who  are  so  rash  as  to 
'  have  recourse  to  you.  For  no  ordinance  of  our  fathers 
'  has  deprived  the  Church  of  Africa  of  this  authority,  and 
'  the  decrees  of  the  Nicene  Council  have  subjected  the 
'  bishops  themselves  to  their  respective  Metropolitans.' 


TJic  Lincoln  Prosecution  227 


The  words  '  prematurely  and  against  the  rules  '  are 
the  important  ones.  The  principle  of  appeal  to  Rome  is 
admitted,  but  it  should  not  be  premature,  i.e.  regardless 
of  the  courts  of  first  instance  ;  it  should  be  '  according 
'  to  rules.'  One  rule,  mentioned  at  once,  is  that  the 
court  of  first  instance  should  be  the  metropolitical  court. 
Bishops  were  subjected  by  the  decrees  of  the  Nicene 
Council  to  their  Metropolitan  in  the  first  instance — a 
principle  which  has  been  in  force  until  the  present  hour  ; 
to  this  day  an  appeal  goes  through  the  Archbishop.  The 
matter  is  investigated  by  him  in  the  first  instance,  and  by 
him  transmitted  to  Rome.  To  be  compelled  to  go  to  a 
Provincial  Council,  or  to  a  Council  of  all  Africa,  as  the 
court  of  first  instance,  as  it  seems  Apiarius  would  have 
been  obliged  to  do,  was  an  inconvenient  mode  of  pro- 
cedure. And  Rome  pointed  out  the  better  way,  viz.  a 
certain  number  of  neighbouring  bishops,  but  with  the 
addition  of  a  Papal  legate.  It  was  to  this  addition  that 
the  Africans  objected.  It  was  not  to  a  final  appeal  to 
Rome,  in  cases  in  which  an  appeal  was  made  from  a 
synod  of  bishops,  that  they  objected  ;  but  they  urged 
that  those  cases  which  could  be  terminated  in  their  own 
province  should  be  so  terminated  without  the  assistance 
or,  as  they  would  have  termed  it,  the  interference  of  a 
Papal  legate,  of  which  they  had  bitter  experience  in  the 
overbearing  ways  of  Faustinus. 

The  difference  between  S.  Augustine's  attitude  to- 
wards Rome,  and  that  of  the  English  Church,  may  be 
seen  from  the  way  in  which  he  dealt  with  the  next  case 
that  arose.  At  the  very  time  when  all  this  question  of 
Apiarius  was  under  consideration,  he  acted  as  defendant 
in  the  appeal  of  one  of  his  suffragans  to  Rome.  The 
Primate  of  Numidia  himself  instituted  an  appeal,  whilst 
the  question  of  the  Nicene  Canons  was  pending,  in 
favour  of  one  of  S.  Augustine's  suffragans,  named  Antony. 

Q2 


228 


The  Lincoln  Prosecution 


S.  Augustine  enters  into  correspondence  with  the  Pope, 
and  entreats  him  not  altogether  to  excuse  Antony,  and 
yet  not  to  deprive  him  of  his  episcopal  office.  He  says  to 
Pope  Boniface  :  '  There  are  instances  in  which  the  Holy 
'  See.  by  its  own  judgment,  or  in  confirming  the  judgment 
'  of  others,  has  left  bishops  for  certain  offences,  neither 
'  stripped  of  episcopal  honour  nor  altogether  unpunished.' 
He  then  mentions  three  cases,  and  says  that  if  Antony 
is  restored  without  any  punishment,  he  shall  feel  it  so 
deeply  that  he  has  even  thoughts  of  retiring.  But  the 
Pope  decided  in  S.  Augustine's  favour. 

It  is  clear  from  the  way  in  which  S.  Augustine  speaks 
all  through  that  he  had  no  thought  of  barring  all  appeals 
to  Rome.  He  wished  those  cases  that  were  to  be  ter- 
minated in  the  province  to  be  conducted  without  the 
presence  of  a  legate,  as  he  considered  that  they  were 
equal  to  doing  so,  and  he  did  not  then  know  the  full  history 
of  the  Council  of  Sardica.  He  did  not  know  that  the 
canons  of  that  Council  had  taken  rank  as  an  appendix 
to  the  Nicene  canons,  and  that  anyhow  they  were  part  of 
the  Church's  law,  as  they  were  afterwards  reckoned  even 
by  the  Eastern  Council  in  Trullo. 

There  is  no  thought  of  schism,  no  dream  of  inde- 
pendence of  Rome,  as  though  she  had  no  rightful  authority 
in  Africa  ;  there  is  not  the  most  distant  parallel  to  the 
attitude  of  our  own  unhappy  countr}-  towards  the  Holy 
See.  This  is  beyond  question,  one  would  have  thought, 
to  anyone  who  has  read,  not  mere  morsels,  but  the 
entire  histor)-,  of  the  relations  of  the  African  Church  to 
the  Apostolic  See. 

There  was  excitement  :  there  was  a  strong  feeling 
against  the  particular  legate,  and  a  real  desire  to  manage 
their  own  affairs  to  a  greater  extent  than  the  presence  of 
a  legate  would  admit.  There  was  all  this  ;  but  it  referred, 
not  to  an  idea  of  severance  from  the  See  of  S.  Peter,  but 


TJie  Lincohi  Prosecution  229 


to  reserving  for  appeal  to  its  august  judgment  only  such 
matters  as  could  not  be  terminated  in  the  province  itself. 
Africa,  it  has  been  said,  was  literally  alive  with  appeals 
to  Rome. 

But  certain  bishops  wrote  to  Pope  Celestine  in  the 
following  strong  terms  :  '  They  (our  fathers)  have  ordained 
'  with  great  wisdom  and  justice  that  matters  should  be 
'  terminated  in  the  places  where  they  arise,  and  did  not 
'  think  that  the  grace  of  the  Holy  Ghost  would  be  wanting 
'  in  any  province  to  bestow  on  its  bishops  the  knowledge 
'  and  strength  necessary  for  their  decisions,  especially  since 
'  whoever  thinks  himself  wronged  may  appeal  to  his  pro- 
'  vince  or  even  to  a  General  Council.'  These  words  do 
not  mention  Rome. 

Let  us  pause  for  a  moment.  From  the  considerations 
adduced,  it  appears  that  the  bishops  are  objecting  to 
complaints  going  straight  to  Rome,  and  leaping  over  a 
Provincial  or  General  Council  {i.e.  a  Council  of  all  Africa), 
not  to  an  appeal  from  such  a  Council.  They  speak  of  cases 
in  which  it  was  an  insult  to  overleap  the  Provincial 
Council,  and  to  imagine  that  Rome  could  decide  better 
without  even  the  help  of  a  decision  from  such  a  Council. 
They  go  on  to  deprecate  the  idea  that  they  could  rely  on 
a  premature  sentence  passed  beyond  the  sea,  where  the 
weak  and  old  could  not  be  summoned  as  witnesses. 
And  then  they  object  to  a  legate  being  sent. 

It  was  no  question  of  whether  under  some  circum- 
stances there  must  be  an  appeal  from  the  Provincial  or 
General  Council  to  Rome,  but  whether  it  should  be 
irrespective  of  any  court  of  first  instance. 

There  can  be  no  question  that  these  bishops,  if  the 
letter  is  genuine,  wrote  with  strong  feelings. 

But  S.  Augustine  was  not  of  their  nutnber.  There 
are  only  fifteen  names  at  the  head  of  this  vehement  letter, 
and  S.  Augustine  was  not  one  of  them.    Neither  does 


230  Tlic  Lincoln  Prosecution 


the  name  of  his  friend  Alypius,  or  Possidius,  or  of  other 
bishops  who  were  amongst  his  disciples,  occur  in  the  hst. 
Indeed,  the  second  name  in  the  list  is  that  of  the  very 
Bishop  Antony  whom  S.  Augustine  wished  the  Pope  to 
reprimand,  but  not  to  punish  him  too  severely.  No  acts 
of  the  Council  from  which  this  letter  purports  to  emanate 
have  yet  been  found.  But  with  this  letter  is  the  Code  of 
the  African  Church,  '  cooked  for  the  times,  as  the  writer, 
'  an  unknown  person,  gives  us  fair  warning.'  He  says  the 
Council  was  a  provincial  one,  which  makes  the  matter 
stranger  still.  A  small  Provincial  Council  settles  an 
affair  which  had  been  commenced  in  a  General  Council 
of  all  Africa,  and  sends,  too,  a  final  reply  to  the  Pope  in 
the  name  of  all  Africa  ! 

I  have  dealt  with  the  letter  as  though  it  were  genuine  ; 
but  I  find  it  hard  to  believe  it  is,  not  because  of  its 
contents,  but  because  of  these  suspicious  circumstances. 
S.  Augustine  certainly  never  enunciated  the  principle 
that  there  was  no  relation  of  subordination  between  the 
Church  of  Africa  and  the  See  of  Rome.  Look  at  his 
175th  Epistle,  in  which  he  tells  the  Pope  that  he  sends 
him  the  proceedings  of  a  Council  of  Carthage,  not  as  a 
favour,  but  as  a  matter  of  duty,  '  that  to  the  statutes  of  our 
'  lowliness  may  be  applied  the  authority  of  the  Apostolic 
'  See.'  Or  again,  see  how  he  writes  from  the  Council  of 
Milevis  and  asks  for  suggestions,  since  '  those  who  hold 
'  opinions  so  perverse  and  pernicious  will  more  easily  yield 
'to  the  authority  of  your  Holiness,  derived  as  it  is  from  the 
'■authority  of  the  Holy  Scriptures^  (Ep.  176). 

Or  again  :  '  Already  on  this  cause  (Pelagianism)  the 
'  decisions  of  the  two  Councils  have  been  sent  to  the 
'  Apostolic  See  ;  thence  also  rescripts  have  come.  The 
'  cause  is  ended  ;  would  that  at  length  the  error  may 
end.' 

S.  Augustine,  indeed,  makes  the  chair  of  S.  Peter 


TJic  Lincoln  Prosecution  231 


627. 
879. 

777- 


one  of  the  notes  of  the  Church,  says  that  succession 
from  that  Apostle  is  the  rock  whereon  the  Church  is  \%.  7 
founded,  points  out  to  heretics  the  claim  to  their  allegiance  ii.  120. 
of  that  Church,  which  has  the  summit  of  authority  through  viii.  69. 
the  succession  of  bishops  from  S.  Peter,  appeals  to  the  ii.  97- 
Pope's  decision  as  the  rule  of  faith,  approves  of  S.  ii.  664. 
Innocent's  assertion  of  his  universal  authority  as  S. 
Peter's  successor,  regards  the  Papal  judgment  as  final,  v.  645. 
perpetually  appeals  to  the  Pope  in  the  most  humble  x.  412. 
manner,  obeys  his  injunctions  as  of  authority,  regards  his 
authority  as  paternal,  speaks  of  his  pastoral  care  for  the 
African  Church,  entreats  for  mercy  towards  those  with 
whom  the  Holy  See  was  displeased,  and  implores  assist- 
ance under  perplexity.  And  he  tells  the  Donatists 
that  had  they  only  appealed  to  '  foreign  bishops,'  or 
'  bishops  beyond  the  sea '  (his  usual  phrase  for  the  See  of 
Rome  and  its  Council  of  Bishops)  all  might  have  been 
well. 

And  one  of  the  last  letters  he  wrote  enunciates  the 
same  principle.  It  concerns  a  bishop,  who,  he  considered, 
had  wrongly  used  his  power  of  excommunication.  He 
adopts  precisely  this  principle — first,  a  Council  in  Africa, 
and,  if  that  will  not  terminate  the  matter,  then  Rome. 

*  With  God's  help,  I  wish  to  bring  this  matter  before  the 

'  Council,  and,  should  it  become  needful,  to  write  to  the  ^n^m  e. 
'Apostolic  See.'    How,  then,  is  it  possible  to  say  that  Ep^jo'^j 
'  England  is  not,  at  this  moment,  more  independent  of  ^j^y"^- 

*  any  authority  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  than  Africa  was  in      ''■  879- 
'  the  days  of  S.  Augustine  '  ? 

Africa  was  in  communion  with  the  Popes,  who 
acted,  all  through,  as  the  divinely  appointed  pastors  of 
the  Universal  Church,  and  after  this  discussion  as  to  the 
courts  of  first  instance,  it  drew  closer  and  closer  to  Rome, 
as  the  Arian  Vandals  pressed  more  and  more  upon  its 
'  See  Sconce's  Testimony  of  Antiquity,  pp.  62-75. 


232 


The  Lincoln  Prosecution 


fair  provinces.  And  the  Sardican  Canons  were  received 
into  its  code,  and  acted  upon  by  S.  Leo  II.,  as  they  were 
all  over  the  world. 

It  is,  indeed,  to  the  law  of  action  sanctioned  by  the 
Sardican  canon  of  which  the  African  bishops  were 
somehow  ignorant,  and  which  had  been  bound  up  with 
the  Nicene  Canons,  as  their  natural  extension — it  was,  I 
say,  to  the  principle  of  this  canon  that  the  Church  owes 
her  preservation  of  the  Christian  Faith.  It  is  common 
to  speak  of  '  Athanasius  against  the  world,'  as  describing 
the  condition  of  things  at  one  critical  period.  But  it  was 
Athanasius  supported  by  the  Pope.  It  was  found  that  an 
observance  of  the  principle  laid  down  in  the  Council  of 
Nice,  as  to  Provincial  Councils,  might  jeopardise  the 
faith,  if  it  was  to  be  understood  (as  it  was  never  meant  to 
be  understood)  as  making  such  Councils  final.  Athana- 
sius found  himself  condemned  and  deposed  by  a  Council. 
But  he  found  his  remedy  in  Rome.  And  the  Sardican 
canon  in  question  was  drawn  up  in  view  of  the  difficulties 
of  Athanasius.  It  reads  thus  :  '  But  if  any  one  of  the 
'bishops  shall  seem  to  have  been  condemned  in  any 
'  matter,  and  thinks  that  he  has  not  a  bad  case,  but  a  good 
'  one,  in  order  that  the  decision  may  be  considered  afresh, 
'  if  it  seems  good  to  your  charity,  let  us  honour  the  memory 
'  of  blessed  Peter,  and  let  letters  be  wTitten  by  those  who 
'  have  given  judgment,  to  Julius,  the  Bishop  of  Rome, 
'  that  so,  by  the  neighbouring  bishops  of  that  province,  the 
'judgment  may  be  considered  anew,  and  he  furnish  the 
'  judges.'  And  the  Councilsletter  to  the  Popegives  its  idea 
of  '  honouring  the  memor)'  of  blessed  Peter '  still  more 
clearly.  '  For  this  will  seem  best,  and  by  far  more  con- 
'  gruous,  if  the  priests  of  the  Lord,  from  each  of  the  several 
'  provinces,  refer  to  the  head — that  is,  to  the  See  of  the 
'Apostle  Peter.'  The  Sardican  canon  did  not  inaugurate 
appeals  to  Rome.    It  encouraged  them,  and  pointed  to  a 


TJic  Lincoln  Prosecution  233 


particular  mode  of  exercising  the  Pope's  authority,  viz.,  the 
appointment  of  a  court  of  neighbouring  bishoi^s,  under 
the  Pope's  direction. 

The  position,  therefore,  of  the  Enghsh  Church  is 
certainly  not  that  of  the  Church  of  Africa  in  the  fourth 
or  fifth  century. 

It  has  thought  to  put  itself  back  to  old  times — an 
impossibility,  in  point  of  fact.  Such  a  position  would  be 
an  ecclesiastical  anachronism.  It  would  be  resigning 
all  that  has  been  gained  in  the  way  of  clear  perception, 
as  to  the  principle  of  authority  and  the  mode  of  its 
exercise,  by  the  conflict  of  thought  and  the  progress  of 
life  in  the  Christian  Church. 

I  say  '  it  has  thought '  to  put  itself  where  Africa  once 
was ;  but  indeed  it  did  not  think  about  it.  The  bishops 
in  the  i6th  century  practically  said  to  the  blessed  Bishop 
Fisher  much  what  some  bishops  said  to  S.  Anselm  when 
he  opposed  the  encroachments  of  the  civil  power  :  '  Lord 

*  and  Father,  we  know  you  to  be  a  religious  and  a  holy 
'  man,  and  that  your  conversation  is  in  Heaven.  But  we 
'  are  held  back  by  our  relations,  whom  we  support,  and  by 
'  many  worldly  cares,  which  we  love.  We  cannot,  there- 
'  fore,  rise  to  a  sublimity  of  life  like  yours,  or  join  you  in 

*  making  scorn  of  the  world.' 

They  took  the  world  with  its  supreme  representative, 
for  their  authority,  and  their  successors  can  only  teach 
with  authority — with  the  authority  of  a  supreme  jurisdic- 
tion— what  the  world  permits.  They  may  tolerate  higher 
views  of  the  Sacrament  and  the  Ministry,  but  toleration 
is  not  authoritative  teaching.  Independence  of  Rome 
means  severance  from  the  Catholic  world ;  and  a  juris- 
diction which  stops  with  a  Metropolitan  is  not  Catholic ; 
whilst  jurisdiction  which  emanates  from  the  State  is 
worldly,  and  not  spiritual.  It  will  never  enforce  the 
dogmatic  principle ;  at  least  it  will  tamper  with  the 


234  ^'^^^  Liyicoln  Proscciitton 


boundaries  of  dogmatic  truth ;  enlarge  its  borders,  to  be 
comprehensive  ;  or  contract  them,  to  be  pure. 

Consequently,  so  far  as  faith  in  'the  sacerdotal  character 
'of  the  Christian  ministry,'  and  'the  Sacramental  prin- 
'  ciple,'  is  concerned,  England  has  since  then  gone  to  rack 
and  ruin. 

At  this  moment  an  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  is 
purporting  to  sit  in  judgment  on  a  Bishop  of  Lincoln,  to 
decide  whether  he  may  use  the  ritual  embodiments  of 
'  the  sacramental  principle.'  He  sits  in  judgment  as  the 
representative  of  Her  Majesty.  He  cites  the  Bishop  of 
Lincoln,  in  obedience  to  a  decision  of  Her  Majesty 
expressed  through  the  Privy  Council,  and  tells  him  he 
is  accused  of  administering  '  bread  and  wine '  (see  the 
Archbishop's  citation)  in  a  particular  way,  and  dealing 
with  the  '  bread  and  wine '  after  service  in  a  particular 
way.  The  two  immediate  predecessors  of  the  present 
Archbishop  have  given  their  judgment  against  the  Bishop 
of  Lincoln's  teaching.  His  immediate  predecessor's 
judgment  is  well  known.  The  words  of  his  penultimate 
predecessor  are  not  so  well  known.  Speaking  of  the 
party  to  which  the  Bishop  of  Lincoln  belongs,  he  says  : 
'  It  is  no  want  of  charity  to  declare  that  they  remain  with 
'  us  in  order  that  they  may  substitute  the  Mass  for  the 
'  Communion  ;  the  obvious  aim  of  our  Reformers  having 
'  been  to  substitute  the  Communion  for  the  Mass.'  And 
again:  'The  use  of  these  sacrificial  vestments  is  in  the 
'  minds  of  many  intimately  connected  with  the  idea  that 
'  an  essential  element  in  the  Holy  Communion  is  the 
'  offering  to  God  a  sacrifice  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of 
'  Christ,  which  abide  with  the  elements  in  a  mysterious 
'  manner  after  the  act  of  consecration.  The  minister 
'  wears  the  vestments  at  that  time  as  a  sacrificing  priest. 
'  According  to  this  view  it  would  seem  that  the  most 
'  important  of  this  Holy  Sacrament  is  what  we  offer  to 


Tlie  Lincoln  Prosecution 


235 


'  God,  not  what  we  receive  from  Him.  This  view  is  not 
'  recognised  by  the  Church  of  England  in  her  formularies.' 
'  The  Romish  notion  of  a  true,  real,  and  substantial 
'  sacrifice  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ,  as  it  is  called 
'  in  the  Council  of  Trent,  entailed  the  use  of  the  term 
'  altar.  But  this  term  appears  nowhere  in  the  Book  of 
'  Common  Prayer,  and  was  no  doubt  omitted  lest  any 
'  countenance  should  be  given  to  the  sacrificial  view.''  The 
Bishop  of  Liverpool  in  his  recent  pamphlet,  on  '  What  is 
'  written  about  the  Lord's  Supper  ? '  (6th  edition,  revised) 
says:  '  I  contend  there  is  nothing  in  the  four  accounts  of 
'  the  institution  of  the  Lord's  Supper  to  show  that  the 
'  twelve  disciples  regarded  the  bread  as  anything  but  bread, 
'  and  the  wine  as  anything  but  wine,  when  they  received 
'them  from  their  Master's  hands'  (p.  15).  'In  that  ac- 
'  count '  (the  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians)  'three  times  over 
'  he  speaks  of  the  consecrated  elements  as  "  the  bread 
'  "and  the  cup,"  and  not  "as  the  body  and  the  blood." 
'  That  simple  fact  appears  to  me  to  settle  the  question.' 
And  speaking  of  the  Black  Rubric,  he  says  :  '  If  that  rubric 
'  does  not  flatly  condemn  the  teaching  of  many  modern 
'  divines  about  the  presence  of  Christ  in  the  sacrament, 
'  under  the  form  of  bread  and  wine,  I  am  very  certain 
'  that  words  have  no  meaning  at  all.' 

Such,  then,  after  three  hundred  and  fifty  years,  is 
the  condition  of  things  under  the  new  departure  since 
Elizabeth's  days.  How  is  it  that  a  trial  such  as  this 
does  not  force  men  to  see  that  in  parting  with  the  juris- 
diction under  which  the  ancient  Church  of  England 
lived,  Englishmen  have  now  lost,  not  of  their  own  fault 
but  through  the  sin  of  their  forefathers,  the  very  idea  of 
authoritative  teaching,  i.e.  the  very  idea  of  a  visible 
Church.     For  a  visible  Church  must  be  numerically 

'  Archbishop  Longley's  last  charge,  quoted  by  ihe  Bishop  of 
Liverpool,  p.  46. 


236 


TJic  Lincoln  Prosecution 


one.  But  how  is  that  one,  visible  Church  which 
teaches  contradictories  ?  Can  our  Lord  teach  contra- 
dictories ?  Can  a  Church  be  His  representative,  which 
teaches  contradictories  ?  Toleration  will  not  serve  the 
idea  of  a  Church.  To  tolerate  opposite  teaching  on  such  a 
vital  point  is  to  throw  the  matter  up,  and  say,  '  We  cannot 
'  enforce  either.  We  have  no  authority  to  enforce  one  to 
'  the  exclusion  of  the  other.'  It  is  to  sanction  the  root-lie  of 
the  day,  viz.,  that  there  is  no  such  thing  as  absolute  truth. 
It  is  to  sanction  it  on  a  point  where  our  Lord  cannot  have 
left  us  in  the  dark.  Think  what  is  involved  in  the 
question  as  to  whether  our  Lord  is  in  His  Sacrament  or 
not  ;  and  then  think  how  a  religious  body  must  have 
renounced  its  raison  d'etre  if  it  cannot  teach  the  people, 
with  authority,  which  is  true  and  which  is  false.  It  is 
not  patience  to  put  up  with  this  persistent  dallying  with 
the  truth. 

Ask  yourself,  reader,  if  you  are  one  of  those  who 
believe  that  our  Lord  meant  what  He  said  when  He  said, 
'  This  is  My  Body,'  and  yet  belong  to  a  religious  com- 
munion one  half  or  more  of  which  denies  the  reality  of 
those  words — ask  yourself,  Why  is  it  that  Rome  never 
falters  on  this  subject,  but  goes  on  the  same,  year  after 
year,  only  bringing  out  more  lovingly  and  prominently 
the  treasure  of  the  Eucharistic  Presence  ?  It  is  part  of 
that  unchanging  teaching  of  which  the  great  Dominican 
spoke  fifty  years  ago  : — 

'  A  doctrine  immutable  when  everj  thing  upon  earth 
'changes — a  doctrine  which  men  hold  in  their  hands, 
'  which  poor  old  men,  in  a  place  called  the  Vatican,  guard 
'under  the  key  of  this  cabinet,  and  which,  without  any 
'  other  defence,  resists  the  course  of  time,  the  dreams  of 
'  sages,  the  designs  of  kings,  the  fall  of  empires — always 
'  one,  constant,  identical  with  itself !  AVhat  a  prodigy 
'  to  deny  !  What  an  accusation  to  silence  I   Therefore,  all 


TJie  Liticoln  Prosecution  237 


'  ages,  jealous  of  a  glory  which  disdained  their  own,  have 
'  tried  their  strength  against  it.  They  have  come,  one  after 
'  the  other,  to  the  doors  of  the  Vatican  ;  they  have  knocked 
'  there  with  buskin  and  boot,  and  the  doctrine  has 
'  appeared  under  the  frail  and  wasted  form  of  some  old 
'  man  of  threescore  years  and  ten.    It  has  said  : 

'  "  What  do  you  desire  of  me  ? " 

'  "  Change." 

'  "  I  never  change." 

'  "  But  everything  is  changed  in  this  world.  Astronomy 
'  "  has  changed,  chemistry  has  changed,  philosophy  has 
'  "  changed,  the  Empire  has  changed.  Why  are  you  always 
'  "  the  same  ?  " 

'  "  Because  I  come  from  God,  and  because  God  is 
'  "  always  the  same." ' 


I 


APPENDIX. 


5.  IE  ROME'S  LETTER  TO  EVAGRIUS. 

In  this  letter  S.  Jerome  says,  'If  authority  is  sought  for, 
'  the  world  is  greater  than  the  city.  Wherever  there  is  a 
'  bishop — at  Rome,  or  at  Eugubium,  or  at  Constantinople,  or 
'  at  Rhegium,  or  at  Alexandria,  or  at  Tanis — he  is  of  the  same 
'  worth,  and  has  the  same  priesthood  or  priestly  power.'  The 
priestly  power  he  defines  as  that  of  '  making  the  Body  and 
'  Blood  of  Christ.'  He  says  that  in  regard  to  this  the  worldly 
position  of  a  bishop  or  priest  makes  no  difference. 

This  passage  was  quoted  some  years  ago  in  a  tract  on 
'Roman  Misquotations,'  which  has  the  signatures  'W.  B.' 
and  '  H.  P.  L.'  attached  to  it,  i.e.  the  Professor  of  Ecclesias- 
tical History  at  Oxford,  and  the  eloquent  Canon  of  S.  Paul's, 
London.  It  is  a  passage  which  is  doing  duty  in  various 
quarters  at  the  present  moment.  In  the  last  of  ten  articles 
on  my  book  called  '  Authority,'  in  '  Church  Bells,'  the 
Avriter  says, '  We  will  ....  give  our  readers  the  benefit  of  a 
'  quotation  from  S.  Jerome  which  it  may  be  as  well  to  preserve 
'  for  use.'  He  then  gives  this  same  passage.  One  of  the  most 
trusted  spiritual  guides  in  the  Church  of  England,  endea- 
vouring to  prove  my  own  untrustworthiness  in  dealing  with 
the  Fathers,  also  quoted  this  passage  in  a  letter  to  prove 
that  '  Mr.  Rivington  entirely  omits  all  allusion  to  what  S. 
'  Jerome  says  on  the  other  side  against  the  claims  of  Rome.' 

In  pomt  of  fact  I  dealt  with  the  passage  in  four  pages,  'Amhority,' 

pp.  113-117. 


240 


Appendix 


showing  how  preposterous  it  is  to  quote  it  as  having  any- 
bearing  on  the  '  claims  of  Rome.' 

Mr.  Gore  waxes  quite  eloquent  on  the  unfairness  of 
Roman  controversialists  in  not  quoting  this  passage.  In- 
deed, he  lays  aside  every  vestige  of  courtesy  when  he  deals 
with  it. 

And  yet  I  have  no  hesitation  in  saying  that  it  is  a  mysteiy 
to  me  what  can  lead  anyone  who  pretends  to  the  slightest 
knowledge  of  the  original  to  depend  on  this  passage  as 
though  it  made  against  the  '  claims  of  Rome.' 

They  have  to  maintain  four  things  which  are  utterly 
without  foundation:  (i)  that  'city'  is  the  same  as  'see'; 
(2)  that  '  worth,'  or  '  merit '  and  '  priesthood,'  or  '  priestly 
'  power'  are  the  same  as  jurisdiction  ;  (3)  that  what  S.  Jerome 
opposes  had  the  approval  of  the  Pope.  There  is  not  a 
shadow  of  proof  for  either  of  these  positions.  But  further 
(4)  it  is  felt  by  some  (very  naturally)  to  be  necessar)'  to  show 
that  this  passage  was  written  later  in  S.  Jerome's  life  than 
his  letter  to  Damasus,  in  which  he  speaks  of  consulting  the 
'  chair  of  Peter.' 

Accordingly,  Dr.  Littledale,  in  his  '  Plain  Reasons  agarnst 
'joining  the  Church  of  Rome,'  began  by  saying  that  the 
passage  in  question  was  written  in  the  year  420,  the  year  of 
the  Saint's  death,  '  or  some  other  very  late  period  of  his  life.' 
And  this  was  important,  as  there  were  other  letters  rather 
close  to  the  end  of  S.  Jerome's  life  which  show  that  his 
opinion  about  communion  with  Rome  remained  the  same. 
But  Dr.  Littledale  incautiously  gave  his  reason  for  this 
supposed  date,  viz., '  because  it  stands  nearly  last  in  \'allarsi's 
'  great  edition.'  Father  Ryder,  however,  pointed  out  that 
Vallarsi  expressly  says  in  his  Preface  that  he  put  this  letter 
at  the  end  of  his  collection,  not  because  he  thought  it  late, 
but  because,  '  neither  on  the  grounds  of  intrinsic  probabilit)', 
'  nor  on  the  concordant  testimony  of  the  learned,  was  it 
'  possible  to  assign  a  certain  date.'  Accordingly  Dr.  Little- 
dale cancelled  his  assertion,  and  said,  without  acknowledg- 
ment, that  the  passage  in  question  was  '  much  later  in  date ' 
than  the  letter  to  Damasus,  though  he  gives  no  reason,  nor 
can  any  be  given. 

The  question  reappeared  in  Mr.  Gore  s  book  when  it  was 


Appendix 


241 


anonymously  published,  supplying  the  ground  of  a  sweeping 
accusation  of  inaccuracy  against  his  opponents.  In  this 
book  the  passage  by  S.  Jerome  is  said  to  have  been  written 
simply  '  later  in  life.' '  But  in  the  new  form  of  that  book  the 
passage  is  said  to  have  been  written  '  apparently  later  in  life.' 

So  we  have  Dr.  Littledale  saying  first  '  in  the  year  of 
'  S.  Jerome's  death,'  or  '  some  other  verj'  late  period  of  his 
'  life,'  because  Vallarsi  put  it  last.  Next  its  date  was  '  later  in 
'  life'  than  the  letter  to  Damasus.  Mr.  Gore  proceeds  with 
Dr.  Littledale's  last  assumption  'later  in  life,'  and  finally 
tones  it  down  to  'apparently  later  in  life,'  and  refers  to 
another  book  of  his  own  in  which  he  divides  S.  Jerome's 
life  into  Papal  and  anti-Papal,  with  no  real  proof,  which  is, 
indeed,  pure  romance.  His  letter  to  his  spiritual  daughter, 
Demetriades,  shows  that  he  was  shortly  before  his  death 
thoroughly  '  Papal.' 

Indeed  history  never  heard  of  his  change  of  mind  until 
it  was  invented  by  the  exigencies  of  the  i6th  century  con- 
troversy. 

Mr.  Gore  supplies  us  with  a  paraphrase  of  S.  Jerome's 
words,  which  is  not  justified  by  anything  in  the  Saint's  letter.  '  r.  c. 
Could  any  unlearned  reader  fail  to  suppose  from  that  para-  p'^,',*^^ 
phrase  that  S.  Jerome  had  used  the  word  'see'  (of  Rome) 
and  not  merely  'city'?  Yet  this  is  the  whole  question. 
S.  Jerome  refers  to  a  local  custom  which  was  in  full  swing 
when  he  was  himself  in  Rome.  He  says  he  had  seen  an 
instance,  when  at  Rome,  of  what  the  deacons,  who  were 
such  great  secular  magnates  owing  to  their  fewness  in 
number,  did  in  the  absence  of  the  Bishop. 

There  is  not  a  syllable  to  show  that  Pope  Damasus 
approved  of  the  custom.  Do  we  not  know  that  at  the  time 
to  which  S.  Jerome  alludes  in  his  letter,  he  was  acting  with 
tite  Pope  against  some  of  the  rebellious  clergy  of  the  city  of 
Rome  ?  How  then  can  a  scholar  venture  to  translate  '  city' 
by  '  See '  ?  So  far  as  the  words  of  S.  Jerome's  letter  go^  he 
might  here  be  even  doing  his  best  to  promote  the  wishes  of 
the  Pope  and  the  Holy  See  against  a  custom,  by  which,  as  it 
seems,  the  deacon,  in  the  social  life  of  the  city,  took  prece- 
dence of  priests.    This  custom  had  the  authority  of  the 

'  Roman  Catholic  Claims,  orig.  edit.  p.  56. 

R 


242 


Appendix 


city's  life,  and  nothing  else.  '  Uo  you  quote  to  me  the 
'  greatness  of  your  city,  and  your  local  custom,  so  that  you, 
'  merely  deacons  that  you  are,  even  sometimes,  in  the  absence 
'  of  your  bishop,  take  precedence  of  priests  ?  Look  at  the 
'  custom  of  the  wide  world — it  is  worth  more  than  the  custom 
'  of  your  city.  Everywhere,  as  your  bishop,  the  Pope,  would 
'  tell  you,  a  priest  is  above  a  deacon,  for  he  has,  like  the 
'  bishop,  the  power  of  "  making  the  Body  and  Blood  of 
'  "  Christ."  A  bishop  is  a  bishop  in  this  respect,  wherever  he 
'  is,  and  so  is  a  priest.' 

There  is  nothing  more  than  this  contained  in  the  actual 
words.  When  Mr.  Gore  speaks  of  S.  Jerome  being  'pressed 
'  with  the  authority  of  the  Roman  See,'  he  is  simply  taking 
liberties  with  the  text,  and  with  his  readers'  intelligence. 

But  further,  is  it  conceivable  that  S.  Jerome  was  prepared 
to  contradict,  in  so  many  words,  the  Canons  of  Nicsea?  And 
yet  this  is  the  dilemma  in  which  they  have  placed  themselves. 

S.  Jerome  says  that  a  bishop  and  therefore  a  priest  {for 
that  is  the  point  of  his  letter)  is  the  same  in  respect  of 
'  worth '  and  '  priesthood,'  whether  at  Alexandria  or  Tanis. 
Now  the  Council  of  Nicsa  placed  Tanis  under  the  jurisdic- 
tion of  Alexandria.  Therefore  the  Bishop  of  Alexandria 
was  superior  to  the  Bishop  of  Tanis,  except,  as  S.  Jerome 
says,  in  the  common  possession  of  the  Sacerdotium.  Did 
S.  Jerome  contradict  the  Nicene  Canons  ?  If  not,  what 
bearing  has  the  passage  in  question  on  the  controversy 
between  Rome  and  England  ?  What  has  it  to  do  with  the 
question  of  superiority  of  jurisdiction  ? 

Nothing.  S.  Jerome  could,  with  perfect  logical  consis- 
tency, repeat  the  passage  in  the  same  breath  with  which  he 
proclaimed  the  necessity  of  communion  with  the  '  chair  of 
'  Peter.'  Indeed,  every  Catholic  does  hold  :  (i)  that  Rome 
and  Alexandria,  and  Rhegium,and  Tanis  were  equal  in  point 
of  a  certain  '  merit '  or  worth — the  Sacerdotium  ;  and  (2)  that 
the  See  of  Rome  is  the  '  chair  of  Peter,'  and  is  the  proper 
authority  in  settling  matters  of  faith.  In  a  word,  Rome 
holds  to-day  precisely  what  S.  Jerome  held  in  these  two 
letters.  Anglicans  misinterpret  one,  and  oppose  it  to  the 
other. 

If  only  they  would  ask  themselves,  when  they  imagine 


Appendix 


243 


S.  Jerome  to  be  speaking  of  the  authority  of  the  See,  which 
of  the  Popes  during  S.  Jerome's  Hfetime  could  be  supposed 
to  sympathise  with  the  custom  that  had  grown  up  amongst 
the  city  clergy,  they  would  surely  see  the  absurdity  of  sup- 
posing that  S.  Jerome  is  speaking  of  the  See,  and  not  simply 
of  the  city  of  Rome.  Will  anyone  suppose  that  Damasus 
approved  of  such  a  custom  ?  or  that  Siricius,  or  Anastasius, 
or  Innocent,  or  Zosimus,  or  Boniface,  would  have  sympa- 
thised with  it  ?  We  know  enough  of  each  of  them  to  say 
that  the  supposition  is  absurd.  Then  why  speak  of  S.  Jerome 
being  pressed  with  the  authority  of  the  See  ?  or  why  quote 
the  passage  as  bearing  in  any  way  on  the  jurisdiction  or 
authority  of  Rome  ?  It  is  the  authority  of  a  local  custom, 
which  practically  ignored  the  essential  equality  of  all  bishops 
and  of  all  priests,  in  the  possession  of  the  power  to  make 
the  Body  of  Christ.  It  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  relation 
of  superiority  or  subordination  between  the  several  sees  in 
point  of  jurisdiction.  Every  bishop,  whether  he  occupies 
the  See  of  Rome  (and  governs  the  Church  as  the  Vicar  of 
Christ),  or  whether  he  occupies  the  subordinate  See  of 
Eugubium,  (which  was  in  the  metropolitical  jurisdiction  of 
Rome),  whether  at  Alexandria  (to  which  the  Nicene  Canons 
secured  its  existing  rights  over  the  other  sees  of  Egypt),  or  at 
Tanis  (which  was  one  of  the  Egyptian  sees) — every  bishop, 
and  therefore  every  priest,  has  precisely  the  same  power  of 
making  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ.  A)id  therefore  a 
priest  is  everywhere  above  a  deacon.  This  is  all  that  S. 
Jerome  asserts.  And  the  worldwide  way  of  expressing  this 
in  social  life  ought,  he  says,  to  weigh  against  the  bad  custom 
of  one  city.  And,  we  may  be  sure  S.  Damasus,  the  Pope, 
would  say  the  same. 


SPOTTISWOODE 


PRINTED  EY 
AND   CO.,  NEW 
LONDON 


•STREET 


SQUARE 


Date  Due 


'  1 

1  

